I 


PRINCETON?  N.  J. 

Part  of  the 
ADDISON  ALivXAXDKR  LIURARY, 
which  was  pvostnted  bj 
Messr.-.  R.  L  .vNi>  A.  Stuart. 


>©©<; 


BX  7631  .LA77 

Letters  of  Paul  and  Amicus 


1 


I 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 
in  2015 


littps://arcliive.org/details/lettersofpaulamiOOpaul 


ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED 


IX 


A  WEEKLY  PAPER, 
:PRIXT£D  at  WLLMIXGTOX,  DELAWARE. 

 — aff»€W^©CWWe?«»»-  

PUBLISHED  AND  SOLD  BY  ROBERT  PORTER,  WILMINGTON; 
AND  JOSEPH  RAKE  STRAW,  PHILADELPHIA. 


IT  may  he  proper  to  inform  the  Reader,  that  this  interest- 
ing discussion  commenced  so  far  back  as  the  earlijpart  of  1821, 
tvith  an  Essay  over  the  signature  of  PJiUL,^^  (in  the 
Christian  Repository,)  charging  the  Society  of  Friends 
with  holding  doctnnes  and  practices  inimical  to  the  pnnciples 
of  the  Gospel,  as  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
J^ew  Testaments,  These  charges  were  ably  met  by  another 
writer  over  the  signature  of  MIICTJS*^^  Seldom  have  the 
productions  of  anonymous  writers  excited  a  more  lively  inter- 
^t  titan  have  these  of  "  PaitZ"  and  Jimiais,''  especially 
among  Presbytenans  and  Friends. 

As  the  Jiutlwrs  have  never  been  recognized,  they  only  are 
responsible  for  the  sentiments  expressed  in  their  Essays, 


THE  PUBLISHERS. 


LETTERS,  &e. 


I 


Sdturdajt  May  i2, 1821. 

LETTER  1. 
TO  THIi  SOCITITX  0¥  TUlTiXTiS. 

A  SINCERE  friend  of  your  society,  a  lover  of  truth,  and  a  well 
wisher  to  every  individual  of  mankind  desires  to  address  you  on 
some  most  important  subjects.  As  you  are  a  jilmn  people,  you 
will  permit  me  to  address  you  in  a  'plain  manner,  without  any 
meretricious  ornament,  or  conformity  to  the  taste  of  a  fantastic 
world.  If  asked  why  I  address  you  through  this  medium  ? — 
because  I  know  no  other.  Your  careful  absence  from  t!ie  reli- 
gious assemblies  of  all  other  denominations,  your  objection  to 
tlie  perusal  of  their  books,  your  unwillingness  to  take  their 
periodical  works,  or  join  theii'  Bible,  Missionary  and  other 
public  christian  associations,  and  your  habitual  reservedness  of 
intercourse,  render  it  diflOicult  and  almost  impossible  to  commu- 
nicate with  you  in  the  usual  way ; — and  even  through  the  medi- 
um of  the  press,  it  will  be  difficult  to  attract  your  notice  or  en- 
gage your  attention. 

Notwithstanding  these  discouragements,  however,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  address  to  your  consideration,  a  series  of  Letters  on 
the  several  important  subjects  upon  which  we  differ;  letters 
which  I  hope  candor  will  induce  you  to  read  and  weigh  ;  if  not, 
I  trust  they  will  not  escape  the  attention  of  the  rest  of  the  com- 
munity. 

And  here,  I  should  do  injustice  both  to  myself  and  you,  not 
to  acknowledge  my  approbation  of  your  general  character.  Of 
your  morality  and  amability,  your  civil  integrity,  affectionate 
manners,  exemplary  simplicity,  your  prudence  and  economy, 
and  I  may  add  your  efficient  internal  discipline,  I  have  the 
highest  admiration.  In  your  opposition  to  war,  slavery,  and 
religious  persecution  I  can  join  with  all  my  heai-t.  But  in  your 
neglect  of  religious  newspapers,  your  opposition  to  Bible  and 
Missionary  Societies,  your  rejection  of  several  Ordinances  of 


4 


6 


€lirist,  your  unsocial  separation  from  all  other  denominations ; 
in  short,  in  the  characteristic  notions  and  conduct  of  your  socie- 
ty I  cannot  join  ; — for  reasons  which  shall  hereafter  he  assigned. 

Whether  any  thing  of  mine  shall  draw  forth  an  answer,  is  a 
matter  of  perfect  indifference.  Controversy  is  not  wished,  but 
is  not  feared.  This  only  may  he  said,  as  I  shall  attack  no  one's 
person,  arraign  no  one's  motives,  but  simply  oppose  principles 
and  doctrines,  no  one  need  expect  me  to  notice  personal  invec- 
tive, hard  names,  suspected  motives,  nor  any  thing  but  sober  ar- 
gument. Epithets,  therefore,  of  impertinent,"  '*  self-conceit- 
ed," proselytor,"  persecutor,"  or  any  names  of  the  kind  I 
give  notice  beforehand,  will  all  be  thrown  away,  as  ^*  I  am  arm- 
ed so  strong  in  honesty,  they'll  pass  me  like  the  idle  wind  which 
I  respect  not." 

As  I  know  you  have  the  most  erroneous  notions  of  our  doc- 
trines and  principles,  it  is  not  impossible  I  may  have  imbibed 
erroneous  views  of  yours.  As  I  have  no  object  in  view  but  truth, 
my  lieart  shall  be  open  to  conviction,  and  every  error  I  shall  be 
happy  to  correct.  The  statement  of  your  doctrines  shall  be 
given,  not  from  the  mouth  of  your  enemies,  but  as  far  as  possi- 
ble, in  your  own  phrases,  taken  from  your  daily  conversation^ 
and  your  most  admired  writers. 

A  complete  discussion  of  every  topic,  with  all  the  arguments 
and  objections,  in  the  short  compass  of  a  newspaper  essay  is 
out  of  the  question.  A  concise  statement  of  truth  and  error, 
is  all  that  will  be  attempted. 

And  now,  conscious  that  my  motives  are  pure,  my  cause  just, 
and  the  objects  for  which  I  contend  of  infinite  moment,  to  tliis 
and  every  future  essay  I  should  have  no  objection  to  subscribe 
my  name  in  full ;  but  as  it  would  answer  no  good  purpose,  and 
might  be  ascribed  by  some  to  ostentation  ;  and  as  tlie  truth  or 
error  of  what  I  write  has  nothing  to  do  with  my  personal  cha- 
racter, I  subscribe  my  sentiments  by  the  name  of  an  old  and 
frequent  combatant  of  yours,  the  Apostle  PAUL. 


Saturday^  May  19, 1821, 

LETTER  II. 

ON  INTERNAX  LIGHT. 

Though  averse  to  creeds,  you  have  a  system  of  faith  and  doc- 
trinal bond  of  union.  As  a  Society  you  tolerate  a  greater  dif- 
ference of  sentiment  among  youi'selves  than  any other  sect  j  but 
yet  in  certain  general  and  distinctive  points  you  all  agree,  as  is 


7 


tvident  fi'om  your  conversation,  conduct  and  books.  These  dis- 
tinctive or  characteristic  doctrines,  I  shall  call  your  cr-eed  or 
system  of  faith ;  and  these  are  the  doctrines,  which,  from  time 
to  time,  I  intend  to  canvass. 

In  all  unscriptural  systems  of  religion  there  is  a  radical  er- 
ror; some  fundamental  principle,  upon  which,  as  on  a  corner 
stone,  the  whole  system  rests.  To  loosen  this  is  to  sap  the 
whole  building  ;  a  blow  here,  is  a  blow  at  the  root."  That 
doctrine  of  yours,  therefore,  which  I  shall  first  call  in  question 
is  this ;  that  there  is  a  certain  internal  lights  which  is  the  source 
of  all  divine  knowledge^  and  the  only  sufficient  guide  and  rule  of 
conduct;  and  that  this  light  is  either  innate,  o?-  given  to  all.'* 
That  you  set  up  this  internal  light  as  a  standard  superior  to  the 
sacred  scriptures  is  the  general  understanding  of  other  denomi- 
nations, and  I  think,  evident  from  your  conversation,  preaching, 
and  the  books  you  patronize.  In  a  summary  of  your  doctrines 
stated  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  one  of  your  most  respectable 
members,"  contained  in  the  Encyclopedia,  and  in  Buck's  The- 
ological Dictionary,  (article  Quakers)  it  is  stated,  <*To  Christ 
alone  we  give  the  title  of  the  word  of  God,  and  not  to  the  sa- 
cred scriptures ;  although  we  highly  esteem  these  sacred  writings^ 
in  SUBORDINATION  to  the  spint.^'  And  in  Kersey's  Treatise, 
<^  we  do  not  agree  with  those  professors  of  Christianity,  who  say 
the  sacred  scriptures  are  the  word  of  God."    (p.  20.)  Hence, 


your  doctrines,  'we  hear  such  language  as  this, — "  We  cannot 
help  it,  but  we  feel  we  are  right." — "  The  same  spirit  which 
was  given  to  Paul  is  given  to  us,  his  writings  have  been  cor- 
rupted, and  it  is  safer  to  trust  the  spirit  tlian  them — when  we 
can  drink  at  the  fountain,  why  drink  from  the  muddy  stream  !" 
' — That  was  merely  Paul's  opinion,  he  was  not  always  inspir- 
ed"— and  many  other  phrases  of  like  import,  all  calculated  to 
reduce  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  exalt  the  light  within. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  this,  I  maintain  that  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures,  (in  their  literal  and  logical  sense)  are  the  supreme  and  o?i- 
ly  standard  of  religious  truth. 

1 .  Because  they  were  written  by  inspiration  of  God.  If  you 
deny  their  inspiration,  what  are  you  better  than  the  Deists,  ma- 
ny of  whom  admit  the  sacred  writers  were  good  men.  If  you 
admit  their  inspiration  ;  in  other  words,  that  these  holy  men 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  you  must  sub- 
mit to  their  decisions,  or  make  yourselves  wiser  than  God ! 
From  the  very  circumstance,  therefore,  that  they  were  dictated 
by  infinite  wisdom,  (which  you  must  admit,  or  profess  deism,) 
Ave  infer  nothing  can  be  a  wiser  or  holier  guide  than  they ;  of 
course  there  can  be  no  higher  standard  of  right  and  wrong. 


in  conversation,  when  particular 


3 


Too  many  of  your  society,  I  fear,  deny  the  plenary  inspim- 
tion  of  the  sacred  volume,  and  are  deists  in  heai-t ;  but  I  am 
willing  to  believe  the  majority  agree  with  Jesse  Kersey,  that 
they  were  written  under  the  guidance  of  the  word  or  Spirit  of 
God,"  and  therefore  are  to  be  held  in  "  high  esteem."  With 
such  only  have  I  controversy.  Says  the  Apostle,  1  Cor.  xiv^ 
37 :  If  any  man  tliink  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual, 
let  him  acknowledge  that  tlie  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord,^'  Gal.  i.  9  :  If  any  man  preach 
any  other  gospel,  let  him  be  accursed."  1  Thes.  iv.  8  :  He 
that  despiseth,  despisetli  not  man,  but  God,  who  hath  given  un- 
to us  his  holy  spirit."  He,  therefore,  that  for  the  sake  of  any 
other  standard,  rejects  what  the  apostle  WTote,  rejects  "  the 
commandments  of  God,"  and  despises"  his  maker.  Those  * 
who  in  the  face  of  the  divine  declarations,  that  all  scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration ;"  of  the  divine  threatening  to  take 
his  part  from  the  book  of  life,  who  should  take  from  the  words 
of  this  book  ;"  and  of  Christ's  promise  to  "  guide  his  apostles 
into  all  truth,  and  bind  in  heaven  what  they  should  bind  on 
earth"  shall  presume  to  reject  or  alter  any  part,  have  surely  no 
claim  to  the  title  of  christian.  With  such,  at  present,  I  have 
nothing  to  do. 

But  whether  those  who  regard  the  sacred  scriptures  as  inspir- 
ed of  God,  and  yet  set  up  a  higher  standard  of  faith  and  practice, 
are  consistent  with  themselves,  or  with  the  sacred  scriptures  is 
the  present  question.  To  the  Bible,  which  you,  as  well  as  I, 
profess  to  reverence,  I  appeal.  If  it  give  countenance  to  such 
a  standard,  I  submit.  If  not,  if  it  uniformly  sit  as  judge  itself, 
and  forbid  all  other  trusts,  condemn  all  other  guides,  your  lead- 
ing doctrine  must  be  given  up. 

2.  Our  Lord  made  the  sacred  scriptures  his  standard,  and  why 
should  not  rve  make  it  ours  ?  '*  What  saith  the  scriptures  ?"  was 
a  frequent  appeal.  It  is  written,"  was  enough  for  him.  **  The 
scriptures  cannot  be  broken,"  was  a  fundamental  principle.  On 
questions  of  personal  guilt  or  innocence,  he  sometimes  appealed 
to  conscience ;  but  in  all  disputes  concerning  doctrine  and  duty, 
when  scri})ture  could  be  quoted,  it  was  quoted,  and  deemed  deci- 
sive. He  appealed  to  a  standai'd  of  which  all  his  hearers  could 
judge.  Had  he  appealed  to  his  own  internal  light,  who  but  him- 
self could  liave  ascertained  the  conformity  of  his  words  to  truth  ? 

3.  We  are  expressly  commanded  to  try  the  spirits,  1  John  iv. 
1  :  "  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether 
they  are  of  God,  for  many  false  prophets  are  gone  abroad  into  the 
world"  It  seems  in  tliat  age,  as  in  every  age  since,  some  were  . 
for  following  internal  impulses  as  their  only  rule.  Against  this 
the  apostle  guards,  and  enjoins  to  try  all  doctrines  and  conduct 


by  scriptural  rules.  If  they  contradicted  the  apostle's  doctriues, 
tlic  spirits  were  false.  How  perfectly  do  you  rexerse  tliis  oi  Jer, 
and  instead  of  ti-ying  the  spirits  by  the  scriptures,  yo^i  try  the  scnp-' 
tures  by  the  spirit ! 

PAUL. 


Saturday^  May  s6, 1821. 

LETTER  III. 

ox  INTERNAL  LIGHT. 

Ix  my  last  I  considered  your  doctrine  of  Internal  Light,  and 
showed  its  inconsistency  with  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  that 
it  was  contrary  to  the  example  of  Christ,  and  the  command  of 
the  apostle  John.  Let  me  now  offer  a  few  further  arguments  for 
your  consideration. 

4.  You  expose  your  people  to  the  delusions  of  an  evil  heart,  I 
put  this  simple  question.  How  shall  a  man  know  when  he  has  the 
spirit?  I  can  conceive  of  but  two  ways,  from  consciousness  alone, 
or  a  comparison  of  our  feelings  with  the  scriptures.  If  the  lat- 
ter, you  make  the  Bible  your  standard,  contrary  to  your  doc- 
trine ;  if  the  former,  if  you  permit  a  man  to  judge  in  himself^ 
without  reference  to  scinpture,  when  he  has  the  spirit,  you  leave 
every  man  at  the  mercy  of  his  w  orst  enemy,  and  under  the  guid- 
ance of  ddceitfulness  itself.  For  says  the  prophet,  Jerem.  xvii. 
9:  The  heaii;  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and  desperately  wick- 
ed, who  can  know  it."  And  is  this  the  infallible  standard  by 
w^hich  we  are  to  estimate  truth !  (You  would  have  evei'y  man 
make  conscience  a  higher  guide  than  the  word  of  truth.)  You 
make  every  thing  of  conscience,  set  it  up  as  an  infallible  guide, 
an' unerring  counsellor.  Now,  we  admit  conscience  is  good,  as 
far  as  it  goes,  but  unless  guided  by  scripture,  it  will  in  many 
points  go  wrong ;  scriptui  e  speaks  of  an  evil  conscience,"  of 
persons  whose  mind  and  conscience  were  defiled."  The  apos- 
tle Paul  says  he  **  lived  in  all  good  conscience,"  while  in  his  un- 
regenerate  state,  and  that  he  verily  thmighi  *^  he  ouglit  to  do  ma- 
ny things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  :"  Acts 
xxvi.  9»  for  which  very  acts  he  afterwards  condemned  himself 
as  a  blasphemer,  persecutor  and  the  chief  of  sinners  :  1  Timo- 
thy i.  13,  15.  Have  we  any  hint  that  the  scriptures  arc  so  de- 
ceitful, defiled,"  deceptive  as  this  standard  of  yours !  Can  you 
wonder  then  that  we  prefer  trusting,  wliere  the  Lord  and  his  apos- 
tles trusted,  to  the  firm  word  of  prophecy,"  rather  than  the  ig^ 
nis  fatuus  of  our  own  imaginations  i  The  letter  of  scripture  is 
plain,  the  heart  is  more  delusive  than  a  dream.  That  a  way  may 


10 


seem  to  us  riglit  and  yet  prove  wrong  is  evident  from  Prov.  xvi. 
25  :  There  is  a  way  which  seemeth  right  unto  a  man,  but  tlie  end 
thereof  are  the  ways  of  death."  How  then  shall  any  one  know 
whether  a  way  w  hich  seems  right,  is  right !  Vou  have  no  stand- 
ard, 7ve  have ;  we  go  to  the  letter  of  scripture.  He  that  trusts 
to  any  light  independent  of,  or  contrary  to  scripture,  trusts  to 
his  own  heart,  and  <*  he  who  trusts  his  own  heart  is  a  fool." 
Prov.  xxviii.  26, 

5.  Scripture  projjoses  itself  as  oiir  standard^  Isaiah  viii.  19.  20; 
"  And  when  they  shall  say  unto  you  seek  unto  them  that  have 
familiar  spirits,  should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God  ?  To 
the  Law  and  to  the  Testimony,  if  they  speak  not  according  to 
this  word  it  is  because  tliere  is  no  liglit  in  them."  Can  any  di- 
rection be  more  plain  ?  The  law  and  the  testimony  are  to  be  our 
guide,  and  men  professing  divine  light  are  to  be  tried  by  the  plain 
letter  of  tlie  law.  If  they  contradict  the  scriptures,  there  is  no 
light  in  them  ;  their  light  is  darkness.  Thus  the  apostle  com- 
mends the  Bereans,  because  they  searched,  (what?  internal 
light?  no,)  the  sacred  scriptures  whether  the  things  which  he 
preached,  were  so,"  Acts  xvii.  1 1 .  And  the  direction  of  our 
Lord,  to  the  Jews  \vas,  not  to  consult  some  internal  luminary, 
but  search  the  **  sacred  scriptures." 

Arguments  on  this  head  might  be  multiplied  to  an  indefinite 
extent ;  but  conciseness  is  my  object.  To  all  this  you  will  object. 

Obj,  1  The  sacred  scriptures  are  never  called  the  word  of  God.^' 
Jlns,  It  is  of  little  consequence  what  they  are  called,  provided 
they  represent  his  mind  and  will.  But  that  they  are  called  the 
word  of  God,  instead  of  more,  I  will  rest  on  two  passages  to 
prove,  1.  Thess.  ii.  13  :  We  thank  God,  because  when  ye 
received  the  word  of  God,  v»hich  ye  heard  of  ns,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  the  word  of  God."  Here  the 
**  woi'd  of  God"  means  something  Avhich  might  be  heard,  and  is 
put  in  opposition  to  the  tvord  of  men.  The  other  is  still  more 
plain.  Col.  iii.  16:  **  Let  the  wo?'(i  o/  C/i?*isi  dwell  in  you  rich- 
ly," i.  e.  on  your  construction,  let  the  Christ  of  Christ  dwell 
richly  in  you  !  But  as  I  said  before,  the  rejection  of  the  name  is 
nothing,  did  it  not  lead  to  the  rejection  of  the  thing. 

Ohj.  2.  Christ  is  the  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that  Com- 
eth into  the  worUV^  True ;  he  giveth  to  each,  all  the  light  he 
has  ;  but  where  is  it  said,  how  much  ?  and  where  that  he  htith 
furnished  each  with  a  guide  superior  to  the  Bible  ?  Those  re- 
gions where  tlie  Bible  is  not  known,  are  called  tlie  dark  places 
of  the  earth,"  the  **  places  where  no  vision  is." 

Obj.  3.  The  sacred  Scriptures  have  been  corrupted  by  trans- 
mission.'* *^ns.  Tins  is  a  bohl  assertion,  which  you  are  bound 
to  prove.    But  befor  e  you  undertake  the  task,  remember, 


11 


/ 


1,  That  in  so  doing  you  reflect  on  Providence,  as  if  after  tiikin,^ 
pains  to  give,  lie  would  not  take  care  to  preserve.  He  liath  said» 
not  a  jot  or  tittle  of  his  law  shall  fail."  Now  suppose  a  word 
or  clause  in  a  prophecy  he  altered,  it  may  falsify  the  whole. 
#  2.  We  have  Manuscripts  of  the  Bihle,  known  hy  the  form  oi' 
the  letter  and  manner  of  writinj^,  to  he  14  or  1600  years  old, 
which  in  every  material  respect  tally  with  our  translation. 
Such  are  the  Alexandrine  Manuscript  in  the  Bristish  Museunv 
the  Codex  Beza,  Camhridge,  llie  Codex  Ephraim,  Paris,  and 
the  Vatican  at  Rome,  supposed  to  ha^  e  heen  Avritten  hefore  the 
lifth  century. 

3.  We  have  versions  and  translations  into  the  various  langua- 
ges of  the  earth,  made  soon  after  the  christian  era,  all  of  which 
agree  with  our  English  version.  The  Syriac  version  was  made 
(say  learned  men)  at  the  close  of  the  firvSt,  or  commencement  of 
the  second  century.  Now  these  are  so  many  unequivocal  proofs 
that  we  have  the  sacred  hooks  as  they  were  first  penned.  But, 
lest  you  should  say,  who  knows  whether  all  tliese  agree  :  I  add, 

4.  The  different  versions  and  manuscripts  have  heen  collated 
and  compared,  and  the  extent  of  the  *•  various  readings"  asrei  - 
tained.  That  the  sacred  scriptures  were  corrupted,  and  that 
different  nations  had  different  Bihles  w  as  a  very  popular  infidel 
objection  urged  during  the  last  century.  To  meet  the  objection 
and  to  compose  the  anxiety  of  timid  christians,  learned  men 
travelled  over  Europe  and  througliout  Christendom,  comparing 
the  various  Manuscripts  in  all  their  parts.  Kennicott  collated 
594  Manuscripts.  De  Rossi,  927  Manuscripts  and  printed  co- 
pies. Dr.  Mill  labored  30  years,  and  ascertained  30,000  various 
readings.  Wetstein  afterwards  discovered  more  than  a  million  f 
But  to  what  did  they  amouiit  ?  to  nothing  !  The  whole  resulted 
in  the  blessed  discovery  that  tlic  objection  was  false,  that  God 
had  most  remarkably  preserved  the  purity  of  his  word,  suffer- 
ing no  material  change  to  be  effected,  and  only  permitting  such 
changes  of  letters  and  synonimous  particles,  and  such  other  un- 
important errors  as  could  not  have  been  prevented  without  a  con- 
stant miracle. 

Since  then  the  sacred  scriptures  were  given  by  inspiration  of 
God — since  Christ  made  them  the  subject  of  constant  appeal — 
and  the  apostle  brings  all  spirits  to  their  bar — since  they  assume 
for  themselves  the  judgment  seat — since  all  other  guides  are  de- 
ceitful and  vain — and  since  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  wc  have 
them  as  at  first  given  by  the  spirit  of  God,  wc  conclude,  to  re- 
ject, reduce,  or  alter  any  part,  or  to  make  the  whole  subordi- 
nate to  some  other  standard,  i*^  nnrcasonahle,  ijirorrect  and  dah- 
gerous. 

VXl'h. 


LETTER  I. 
AMICUS  TO  PAUL. 

I  OB  SERTE  in  the  eiftii  number  of  the  Christian  Repository,*'  % 
that  a  correspondent  has  commenced  a  series  of  addresses  to  the 
Religious  Society  of  Friends.  As  it  is  important  that  an  author 
shouhl  have  a  clear  understanding  of  his  subject,  in  order  to  be 
useful  to  tliose  whom  he  wishes  to  instruct ;  and  as  Paul"  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  lover  of  truth,"  I  entertain  a  hope  that  I  may  be 
able  to  give  him  some  information,  that  may  add  materially  to 
bis  stock  of  knowledge,  relating  to  that  people,  and  perhaps 
save  him  the  trouble  of  much  fuHher  inquiry.  Notwithstanding 
his  first  address  bears  the  unkindly  face  of  a  challenge,  and  his 
attitude  is  that  of  a  man  strongly  armed"  for  battle,  yet  it  is 
not  my  intention  to  enter  with  him  into  the  field  of  Religious 
Controversy;  for  thoug^i  he  may  "not  fear  it,"  yet  I  confess  I  do. 
I  'save  cherished  from  my  youth  up,  a  kindly  feeling  tow  ards  my 
fellow  professors  of  the  Christian  name,  under  the  various  reli- 
gious denominations  which  distinguish  them,  and  I  am  afraid  of 
controversy,  because  in  its  course  it  often,  if  not  always  enlisis 
those  passions  which  militate  against  charity,  without  which, 
all  our  professions,  and  even  our  other  virtues  are  as  the  Apos- 
tle Paid  affirms,  but  as  sounding  brass  or  a  tinkling  cym- - 
bal."  My  object  is  to  state  a  few  facts,  and  to  make  such  ob- 
sei'vations  as  naturally  arise  out  of  the  subject,  and  then  to  leave 
tlic  candid  and  dispassionate  enquirer  to  make  such  reflections  as 
the  statements  may  suggest. 

The  first  observation  in  his  preliminary  essay,  that  claims 
particular  attention  is,  **  our  careful  absence  from  the  religious  as- 
semblies of  all  other  denominations.'* 

Whether  this  feature  of  the  Society  of  Friends  is  peculiar  to 
tliem,  I  cannot  say.  I  presume  that  most  christian  professors 
attend  their  own  places  of  worsliip,  and  are  consequently  absent 
fj'om  the  religious  meetings  of  others.  But  tliere  are  two  causes 
w  hich  1  apprehend  operate  with  us  to  produce  this  effect,  which 
I  will  endeavour  to  explain  :  And 

First.  It  is  about  170  years  since  tlie  Society  of  Friends  were 
regularly  oi'ganized  as  a  religious  body.  They  set  out  with  a 
belief  tliat  tlie  injunction  of  our  Lord  was  binding  on  them, 
where  he  said  to  his  disciples,  Matthew  x.  8  :  "  freely  ye  have 
received,  freely  give."  This  plain  command,  standing  in  con- 
ti'adiction  to  no  other  precept  of  the  same  or  equal  authority, 
tljey  consider  as  conclusive,  and  in  conformity  with  it  their  min- 
isters have  ever  preaclied  without  money  and  witliout  price." 
Tiiey  conceive  that  a  mercenary  ministry  is  unwarranted  by  thc' 


13 


precepts  of  the  gospel,  or  the  practice  of  the  Apostles ;  that  it 
is  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  a  christian  minister ;  that  it  Ics- 
isens  tlie  practical  influence  of  the  office,  by  the  imputation  of  self- 
ish views  to  those  who  receive  pay  for  preaching  ;  that,  it  has 
a  tendency  to  suppress  reproof  and  other  plain  dealing  towards 
those  who  pay,  and  begets  a  desire  to  please  at  the  expense  of 
ti'uth ;  and  finally,  that  it  is  subject  to  the  grossest  abuses,  as 
the  experience  of  ages  abundantly  demonstrates.  It  needs  not 
that  we  be  deeply  read  in  ecclesiastical  history,  to  discover 
proofs  of  this  ;  almost  every  page  of  it  gives  some  incontrovert- 
ible evidence  of  the  fact.  Let  us  cast  our  eyes  on  Europe,  and 
look  back  through  the  gloomy  vista  of  a  few  centuries.  What 
a  melancholy  picture  do  the  effects,  produced  by  a  hireling  priest- 
hood^ present  to  the  contemplative  mind  !  and  even  at  this  day, 
in  some  parts  of  that  country,  what  grievous  burdens  do  this 
class  of  people  bind  upon  the  shoulders  of  their  christian  breth- 
ren, which  they  will  not  raise  a  finger  to  lighten  or  unloose. 

It  is  the  connexion  of  pecuniary  rewards  with  tlie  ministry 
that  has  given  rise  to  the  word  *'  Friestci'aftf''  and  other  oppro- 
brious terms  which  go  to  lessen  the  influence  of  the  professed 
ministers  of  Christ,  terms  which  would  never  have  been  invent- 
ed, had  they  always  imitated  the  noble  example  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who,  at  Miletus,  addressing  those  among  whom  he  had 
laboured  in  the  Gospel,  told  them  in  these  memorable  words. 
Acts  XX.  33  :  **  I  have  coveted  no  man's  silver,  or  gold,  or  ap- 
parel, yea,  ye  yourselves  know  that  these  hands  have  ministered 
unto  my  necessities,  and  to  them  that  were  with  me.  I  have 
sJiewed  you  all  things,  how  that  so  labouring  ye  ought  to  support 
the  weak,  and  to  remember  the  words  of  the  Lord,  how^  he  said 
it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive." 

Under  impressions  produced  by  reflections  such  as  these,  the 
Society  of  Friends  have  believed  that  they  could  not  consistently 
with  their  principles,  and  views  of  Scripture  truth,  countenance 
a  mercenary  ministry,  even  so  far,  as  to  attend  the  ^^  orship  of 
those  who  employed  it.  It  is  not  from  a  belief  that  there  are  no 
sincere  and  virtuous  men  in  the  ministry  amongst  tiiem  ;  it  is  not 
from  any  personal  dislike  to  these  functionaries  ;  it  is  not  from 
any  disrepect  to  our  fellow  prefessors  of  the  Christian  name ;  it 
is  not  from  any  shyness  towards  those  who  differ  from  us  in  opi- 
nion, that  we  do  not  join  them  in  their  forms  of  worship.  We 
sincerely  love  and  esteem  those  under  whatever  name,  whose  lives 
correspond  with  their  profession,  who  evince  by  .their  conduct 
that  in  essential  points  they  are  not  hearers  only,  but  doers  of  the 
•word. 

Secondly,  As  God  is  equally  present  every  where,  the  Societ\ 
of  Friends  do  not  believe  that  the  place  of  meeting  for  religious 


14 


purposes,  has  any  ])eculiar  sanctity,  because  of  its  use ;  they  do 
not  believe  that  t)»e  mere  assembling  together,  in  order  to  wor- 
ship, creates  an  obligation  on  those  who  meet  to  make  a  sign  of 
adoration  when  they  enter  the  house ;  and  having  no  scripture 
precept  or  example  for  it,  they  think  that  uncovering  the  head  in 
a  religious  assembly  (except  when  the  divine  being  is  address- 
ed in  vocal  prayer,)  is  rather  a  sign  of  superstition  than  a  ne- 
cessary religious  act.  From  the  practice  of  other  christian  pro- 
fessors, generally,  I  presume  they  think  differently,  but  as  the 
Society  of  Friends  see  no  reason  to  conform  to  this  ceremony, 
and  as  the  non-observance  of  it,  might  give  offence  to  their  so- 
ber neighbours,  they  find  in  this  circumstance  an  additional  rea- 
son for  absenting  themselves  from  the  worship  of  those  who 
practice  it. 

Having  given  some  reasons  for  the  absence  of  Fnends  from 
the  worship  of  other  professors,  I  shall  proceed  to  notice 
**  Paul's"  next  observation  :  to  wit,  our  alleged  objection  to 
the  perusal  of  books,  WTitten  by  members  of  other  denomina- 
tions." By  his  publication  of  this  sentiment,  I  shall  endeavor 
to  shew  that  it  is  not  impossible  that  "  Paul"  may  have  imbib- 
ed  erroneous  view  s." 

I  was  educated  w  ithin  the  precincts  of  the  Society  to  whom 
**  Paul"  addresses  himself,  and  have  had  for  many  years  free 
and  extensive  communication  with  the  members  of  it,  and  I  can 
safely  say  that  this  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  lieard  such  a  sen- 
timent. I  have  perused  their  book  of  discipline,  carefully,  and 
find  no  allusion  to  tlie  subject.  Tiie  yearly  meeting  recommends 
to  heads  of  families  and  guardians  of  minors,  to  prevent  as 
much  as  possible,  their  children  and  others  under  their  care  and 
tuition,  from  reading  books  tending  to  prejudice  the  profession 
of  the  christian  religion,  to  create  the  least  doubt  concerning 
the  authenticity  of  tlie  holy  scriptures,  oi*  of  the  saving  truths 
declared  in  them  ;  and  earnestly  recommends  that  its  members 
should  discourage  the  reading  of  Plays,  Romances,  Novels  and 
other  pernicious  books,  as  a  practice  inconsistent  with  the  purity 
of  the  christian  religion  ;"  but  I  no  w  here  find  a  word  against 
reading  books  of  a  religious  nature,  written  by  other  christian 
professors  :  on  the  contrary,  the  writings  of  some  of  tliese  are 
standard  books  in  the  private  libraries  of  Friends.  And,  I  give  - 
it  as  my  deliberate  sentiment,  that  there  is  no  society  of  people 
who  are  better  versed  in  tlie  doctrines  and  principles  of  other  re- 
ligious professors  than  the  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
are.  The  writer  of  this  article,  although  his  library  cannot  be 
called  a  large  one,  has  at  least  eighty  volumes  wholly  devoted 
to  religious  subjects,  all  of  which,  w  ere  written  by  members  of 
other  religious  professions ;  amongst  which,  I  find  on  examina- 


15 


tion,  the  productions  of  some  of  the  principal  professors  dis- 
tinguished by  different  names,  who  call  themselves  christians ; 
and  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  that  any  of  my  fellow  membei^s 
would,  if  they  saw  all  the  books  of  my  library,  consider  me  as 
heterodox,  or  in  the  least  departing  from  the  views  or  principles 
of  the  society  to  which  I  belong,  on  that  account. 

Equally  foreign  from  the  fact,  is  the  assertion,  that  we  "  are 
unwilling  to  take  the  periodical  works,  published  by  members 
of  other  denominations."  It  is  true,  that  we  consult  our  taste 
in  tlie  purchase  of  works  of  this  kind  ;  we  do  not  subscribe  for 
books  we  cannot  relish  or  approve  ;  but  I  cannot  suppose  reas- 
onable men  will  censure  us  much  for  this,  as  I  apprehend  few^ 
people  do  otherwise. 

I  am  perfectly  satisfied  on  one  point,  that  is,  were  I  to  take  all 
the  periodical  religious  publications  in  the  world,  no  member  of 
our  society  Avould  blame  me  for  it,  nor  would  I  incur,  by  so  do- 
ing, the  censure  of  any  of  its  rules,  provided  the  profits  of  such 
publication  were  not  appropriated  to  support  some  establishment 
inconsistent  with  our  religious  principles,  and  also,  provided  1 
punctually  paid  the  subscription  money  for  them. 

The  other  charges  of  Paul,  I  propose  to  notice  in  future  num- 
bers of  the  Repository. 

AMICUS. 

LETTER  IV, 

ox  BAPTISM. 

In  the  rth  Number  of  the  Repository,  a  friend  of  yours,  under 
the  signature  of  Amicus"  has  undertaken  to  defend  your  cause. 
>Vith  the  amiable  and  excellent  spirit  of  his  remarks  I  confess 
myself  well  pleased,  and  from  hir  introductory  luldress,  antici- 
pate candor  and  charity  in  all  future  oommunications.  The  top- 
ics he  has  touched,  I  will  soon  discuss ;  but,  at  present,  I  cannot 
be  diverted  from  what  I  deem  infinitely  more  important  subjects. 
To  his  essay  I  have  the  same  objection,  as  to  the  society  of 
which  he  is  a  member — he  makes  too  much  of  little  things^— -is 
employed,  like  the  Pharisees  of  old,  *•  tithing  mint,  anise  and 
cummin,"  to  the  neglect  of  the  "  weightier  matters  of  the  law." 

hether  the  ministry  be  supported  by  previous  or  subsequent, 
by  express  or  implied  contract,  whether  men  imprison  them- 
selves in  their  own  churches,  or  occasionally  visit  other  sanctua- 
ries to  hear  tUe  other  side  of  the  question,  whether  they  say  yea 
or  yeSf  thcc  or  yon,  wear  a  black  coat  or  a  drab  one,  a'/aree  hat 


16 


or  a  svmll  one,  and  worship  with  the  head  covered  or  naked,  are 
surely  matters  of  small  moment,  questions  fit  lor  none  but  chil- 
dren !  But  whether  the  word  of  God  or  the  vagaries  of  a  deceit- 
ful heai-t  should  be  our  rule  of  faith — whether  we  have  a  right 
to  reject  the  seals  of  God's  covenant  and  the  badges  of  Christi- 
anity ;  and  whether  we  are  to  be  justified  by  our  own  or  by 
another's  righteousness,  are  questions  of  high  moment,  and  oi* 
eternal  consequence — questions  which  I  am  willing  to  discuss. 
Until  therefore  your  friend  assail  some  important  doctrine,  start 
some  important  error,  much  as  I  respect  his  talents  and  his 
heart,  he  will  excuse  me,  if  I  pursue  my  originally  contemplat- 
ed course. 

I  proceed  to  examine  your  doctrine  on  the  Sacraments  or  seaL^ 
ing  Ordinances;  and  first  of  Baptism. 

You  teach  that  water  baptism  is  not  an  ordinance  of  Christ — 
that  the  only  baptism  required  is  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,'' 
That  this  is  your  doctrine,  is  too  palpable  from  the  universal 
practice  of  your  society,  and  from  all  tiiat  Barclay,  Clarkson, 
and  Kersey  have  witten  on  the  subject,  to  need  any  formal 
proof.  What  expressions  are  more  common  in  your  discourse 
with  us,  than,  'Mt  is  right  for  you  if  \ou  think  it  right,  but 
then  it  is  an  uncommanded  useless  ceremony  ; — if  we  have  the 
thing  signified,  it  is  of  little  consequence  whether  we  have  the 
sign;'* — *'all  such  ceremonies  are  inconsistent  with  the  spirit- 
uality of  the  present  dispensation;" — *' watei*  baptism  will  nev- 
er save  without  spiritual  baptism"  &c.  &c.  with  much  more, 
some  of  which  is  true,  some  false,  and  some  nothing  to  the  point. 

That  baptism  considered  in  itself  will  save  its  subjects,  we 
do  not  pretend ;  but  as  an  act  of  obedience  to  God,  it  is  an  ap- 
pointed means  of  grace  and  salvation.  That  an  act  may  be 
right  for  us  and  wrong  for  you,  is  readily  granted,  provided 
that  act  be  of  an  indifferent,  uncommanded  kind.  Modes  of  dress, 
forms  of  speech,  kinds  of  food  may  be  right  or  wrong,  accord- 
ing to  our  notions  :  Rom.  xiv.  But  what  God  by  express  prc- 
eept  has  made  right,  can  never  be  made  wrong  ;  and  what  he  hasr 
made  wrong,  no  notions  of  ours  can  make  right.  If  God  has 
not  commanded  water  baptism,  the  use  of  it  is  left  at  our  discre- 
tion ;  but  if  he  has  made  it  a  matter  of  positive  injunction,  it  i& 
no  longer  a  matter  of  indifference,  we  neglect  it  at  our  peril. 

As  to  llavitig  the  thing  signified  without  the  sign,  it  may  be, 
but  in  general,  it  is  not  to  be  expected.  And  if  we  have  obtained 
the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  we  ought,  nevertheless,  to  submit  to 
tlie  baptism  of  water.  Did  not  Abraham  receive  drcnmcision 
the  seal  of  the  faith  which  he  had  bcf are  circumcision^  Rom.  iv. 
11.  Were  not  tlie  Ethiopian  eunuch,  the  Roman  (y'liturion,  the 
Apostle  I'aul  and  many  others  baptized  with  water  after  they 


17 


possessed  an  interest  in  Christ?  Acts  viii.  ix,  x.  It  is  not 
enough,  therefore,  to  have  the  thing  signified.  It  is  not  enofisjh 
to  be  ill  Christ,  we  ought  also  to  wear  the  badge,  make  a  public 
profession  of  his  name,  and  openly  put  on  Christ. 

As  to  the  **  ceremonies  hcing  inconsistent  with  the  present  dis- 
pensation,"— this  is  begging  t!ic  question  witliout  an  offer  of  an 
argument.  Are  you  wiser  than  Grod  ? — If  he  think  them  consist- 
ent, are  you  prepared  to  contradict  ?  If  he,  to  assist  our  faith, 
and  move  our  feelings,  is  pleased  to  address  us  througli  our 
senses,  **will  you  disannul  his  judgment,  and  condemn  him, 
that  ye  may  he  righteous      Job  xl.  8. 

AVe  are  now  prepared  for  the  question,  "  Is  water  baptism  an 
ordinance  of  God,  at  present  binding  on  the  church  r"  Let  it  be 
understoood,  we  are  not  now  inquiring  about  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, whether  it  should  be  administered  by  sprinkling,  pouring 
or  immersion; — or  about  tlic  subjects  of  baptism,  whether  adults 
only,  or  their  children  also  :  But  is  water  baptism,  in  any  shape^ 
obligatory  on  the  church?  We  allirm,  and  you  deny. — Consider^ 

1.  The  express  command  of  Jesus  Christ,  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  teach  all  nations,  baptising  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commaiided  you ; 
and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.'* 
And  Mark  xvi.  16  :  *'  Whosoever  belie vcth  and  is  baptised  shall 
be  saved." — quoted  soon  after  by  the  Apostle  Peter  Acts  ii.  38. 
•*  Repent  and  be  baptised  every  one  of  you." — Now,  when  we  re- 
collect the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  and  especially 
the  sense  in  which  our  Lord  knew  the  Apo-ities  understood  it, 
one  would  think  these  texts  alone  would  end  the  controversy. 
Some  other  spirit  than  the  spirit  of  God.  some  otlier  light  than 
the  light  of  scripture  and  reason  must  be  called  in  to  interpret 
these  as  not  enjoining  water  baptism.  Efforts  however  have 
been  made  to  set  the  whole  aside. 

First,  it  has  been  said,  by  baptising  notlung  more  is  meant 
than  teaching J'^  But  it  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  construction, 
that  the  word  baptise  is  never  used  in  this  sense  in  the  whole  of 
scriptui^e: — and  that  teaching  is  also  commanded  in  the  next 
verse.  Teaching  must  accompany  baptism ;  but  baptism  is  not 
teacliing.  Again ;  it  is  said  baptism  means  conferring  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  granted  the  word  is  sometimes  used  in  this  sense, 
because  purifying  tlie  soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  thing  ^ig- 
niiied  or  represented  by  the  rite  of  baptism.  But  this  is  not  its 
signification  here.  Because  it  was  an  apostolic  or  human  act 
which  is  here  commanded.  But  to  baptise  with  tlie  Holy  Ghost 
ii-as  no  more  in  tlie  power  of  the  Apostles  than  to  create  a  world. 
Like  John  the  Baptist  they  could  only  "baptise  with  Avater.'* 


Besides,  as  this  commission  was  to  last  *'aMays  eVen  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  it  follows,  some  are  commanded  to  baptise 
now.  But  wliat  minister,  either  of  yonr  denomination  or  any 
other  can  baptise  with  the  Holy  Ghost  !  **Paul  may  plant,  6cc.'' 
The  truth  is,  tlie  application  of  7vater  is  the  ordinary ^  conferring 
the  ffoly  Spirit  the  extraordinary  meaning  of  the  term.  And 
thus  it  was  understood  by  all  the  Apostles  and  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  as  will  be  ev  ident  if  we  consider, 

2d.  The  Jipostles  actually  applied  water  to  their  converts.  Wc 
have  seen  their  Commission,  let  us  now  look  at  their  Practice, 
1.  Philip,  Acts  viii.  36,  38,  ^icc.  Pliilip  and  the  eunuch  **  came 
to  a  certain  water,  and  he  said,  see  here  is  water,  what  doth  hin- 
der me  to  be  baptized?  and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water, 
and  he  baptised  him."  Was  not  this  water  baptism?  2.  Peter, 
Acts  X.  44 — 48  :  While  Peter  yet  spake,  the  Holy  Gliost  fell 
on  all  those  that  heard  the  word  :  then  Peter  said.  Can  any  for- 
bid water  ?  and  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptised  in  the  name 
of  tlie  Lord."  Surely  Peter  thought  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  to  set  aside  the  baptism  of  water.  3.  And  so  did 
Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  14.  1  thank  God  that  I  Z>a;;i?sed  none  of  you 
1)ut  Crispus  and  Gains ;  and  the  household  of  Stephanas,"  (since 
they  made  it  an  occasion  of  party  spirit.)  What!  thank  God 
that  he  had  communicated  the  Holy  Ghost  to  only  a  few ! — Never; 
he  must  have  referred  to  water  baptism.  When  he  afterwards 
says  (v.  17.)  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  preach  the 
Gospel,"  he  evidently  means  notliing  more  than  that  preaching 
is  more  important  than  baptism,  or  that  preaching  was  his  chief 
business.  That  Luke  also  understood  baptism  as  something  dif- 
ferent from  conferring  the  Holy  Ghost  is  evident  from  the  whole 
'book  of  Acts,  V.  Acts  viii.  16.  xix.  5,  6. 

And  here,  for  the  present,  I  pause  in  my  argument,  and  wait 
for  your  objections.  In  the  mean  time,  let  me  beseech  you,  my 
dear  friends  weigh  well  tliis  fact, — that  the  Commission  of  our 
Lord,  if  as  you  suppose,  not  express,  was  calculated  to  lead  to 
Tvater  baptism, — that  all  the  apostles  and  primitive  christians, 
so  far  as  we  can  learn  tlieir  practice,  observed  an  ordinance 
which  you  reject; — that  tlie  wliole  christian  world  for  1600 
years,  (till  "170  years  ago,")  and  nine  tentlis  of  professing 
christians  now,  are  against  you  on  this  subject; — and  then  an- 
swer if  there  is  not  reason  to  doubt  tlie  correctness  of  your  doc- 
ti'ine ;  and  will  it  not  be  a  wiser  plan  to  conform  to  an  ordinance 
so  easy  and  useful,  lest  peradventurc,  you  be  found  fighting 
aeainst  God. 

PAUL. 


19 


Sit'e):th-day,6th  Mn.  26,  lazi, 

LETTER  11. 

Having  in  my  former  communication  endeavoured  to  illus- 
ti'ato  some  of  the  views  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  to  state 
some  facts  which  I  deem  important  to  a  right  understanding  of 
their  character  as  a  religious  hody,  I  shall  proceed  to  notice 
some  of  the  other  remarks  of  Paul,"  contained  in  his  first  Es- 
say. Tlie  suhject  of  his  second  address,  I  must  leave  for  future 
consideration.  From  some  cause  I  apprehend  their  character 
and  view^s  are  misunderstood,  what  that  cause  is,  I  must  leave, 
although  I  cannot  believe  it  proceeds  from  habitual  reserve." 
It  is  true,  they  are  not  fond  of  controversy,  but  I  have  never  ob- 
served that  they  w  ere  averse  to  explanation. 

The  period  in  which  religious  controversy  w^as  a  favourite 
theme,  with  the  generality  of  christian  j)rofessors,  I  believe  has 
long  passed  by.  It  has  been  succeeded  by  a  day,  either  of  in- 
difference to  the  subjects  of  it,  or  of  calm  investigation  into  the 
all-important  concerns  of  salvation.  With  men  of  sound  reflec- 
tion, the  quiet  end  patient  search  after  truth  must  be  decidedly 
preferable  to  the  hurried  pursuit  of  it  through  the  stOrmy  and 
turbid  region  of  controversy ;  these  do  not  willingly  quit  the 
serenity  of  the  former,  for  the  unsettled  and  tempestuous  scenes 
of  tlie  latter :  nor  would  I  desire  they  should.  If  the  sacred 
scriptures  are  the  only  adequate  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  they 
must  be  best  understood  in  a  state  of  retii'ement  and  private 
prayer.  If  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  under  whose  influence  they  wei^ 
written,  is  the  primary  source  of  instruction,  its  language  w  ill 
be  most  intelligible  w  hen  the  mind  is  undisturbed  by  tlie  clamour 
of  debate.  With  these  views  I  shall  endeavour  to  keep  the 
gi'ound  of  calm  discussion,  and  to  give  a  reason  of  the  hope, 
aftd  faith,  and  practice,  of  the  pco])le  w  ith  w  hom  I  stand  connect- 
ed, in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  dignity  and  solemnity  of  a  re- 
ligious subject.  Having  premised  these  observations,  I  shall  pro- 
ceed to  Paul's"  next  remarks,  **  That  Friends  are  unwilling 
io  join  with  others  in  their  Bible  and  Missionary  Societies. 

In  order  to  understand  the  real  state  of  the  case,  it  may  be 
necessary  to  mention  a  few^  facts.  In  the  first  place,  a  consider- 
able number  of  their  members,  both  in  England  and  America, 
have  joined  the  Bible  Associations,  and  rank  amongst  their  ac- 
tive and  liberal  contributors ;  of  this,  w  ere  it  necessary,  I  could 
adduce  ample  proofs.  In  the  next  place,  our  Yearly  Meeting 
have  a  book  department,  and  otlicers  appointed  to  distribute  Bi- 
bles and  other  religious  publications,  as  suitable  occasions  are 
presented :  this  is  not  a  new  establisliment,  it  is  of  veiy  long 
standing.    It  makes  no  noise  in  the  world,  w  as  never  publLsheil 


20 


in  the  newspapers.  It  is  like  a  gentle  stream  fed  from  an  un- 
failhiT  spi iiii  ,  spreading  verdure  and  fertility  tlirougli  all  its 
meariderH — silent  in  its  course,  and  scarcely  known  but  where 
its  bencf  ts  are  felt. 

It  can  scarcely  have  escaped  general  observation,  that  the  So- 
ciety cf  Friends  have  a  very  quiet  way  of  doing  their  business, 
it  is  in  fact  tlie  true  ground  of  Paul's"  complaint  against 
them  in  the  present  instance.  In  their  works  of  charity,  they 
seem  studiously  to  avoid  every  thing  that  might  attract  public 
attention.  Many  of  their  members  are  fed,  and  clothed,  and 
e(>ucated,  from  the  funds  of  the  society,  whilst  tlieir  fellow  mem- 
bers rrenerally  do  not  know  them  to  be  subjects  of  public  bounty : 
thus  tlie  end  of  charity  is  answered  in  a  two  fold  way ;  poverty 
is  relieved,  without  being  exposed. 

i  liave  sometimes  when  viewing  them  as  with  the  eye  of  an  in- 
dilfcient  observer,  been  struck  with  an  idea  that  they  laid  par- 
ticular stress  upon  that  injunction  of  our  Lord,  *'When  thou 
docst  thine  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what  thy  right  hand 
(■cc  th,  that  thine  alms  may  be  in  secret,  and  thy  Father  who  seeth 
171  secret  himself  shall  reward  thee  openly."  Matt.  vi.  3.  Be 
11  at  as  it  may,  the  noiseless  tenor  of  their  progress,  has  often 
been  tl^c  subject  of  remark ;  but  I  can  hardly  su])pose  that  indif- 
ferent judges  will  consider  them  much  behind  their  fellow  chris- 
tians in  **love  and  good  works." 

\^  hen  I  have  considei-ed  the  course  pursued  by  members  of 
other  religious  persuasions  in  their  Bible  Societies,  Mission- 
ary Associations,  Charity  Schools,  Tract  Societies  and  other 
benevolent  institutions,  tlie  innumerable  pamphlets  and  news- 
papers tl'ey  ])ublish,  teeming  with  accounts  of  their  good  deeds, 
with;  lists  of  their  contributor's  names,  with  the  amount  of  their 
d(  nfitions,  as  v  ell  as  with  the  surprising  effects  of  their  labours, 
it  has  seemed  to  me  that  they  must  have  forgotten  the  command 
of  our  Lord,  where  he  says,  **  \A  hen  thou  doest  thij?e  alms  do 
not  sound  a  trumpet  before  thee,  as  the  hypocrites  do  in  their 
s\  nr;gogues  and  in  the  streets,  that  they  may  have  glory  of  men:" 
Mf-tt.  vi.  2.  If  they  do  not  forget  it,  they  must  suppose  the  end 
justifie;^  the  means,  and  warrants  them  to  pursue  a  different  course 
fron;  that  pointed  out  by  the  higlfest  authority.  The  man  that 
went  up  into  the  temple  to  pray,  boasted  of  his  good  works  be- 
fore those  ^\  ho  were  assembled  with  him  under  the  same  roof, 
and  stood  reproved  ;  tlie  walls  of  a  single  house,  form  two  nav- 
rov  a  boundary  for  modern  christians  to  tell  of  theirs  in,  and  by 
a  thousand  heralds  they  proclaim  them  to  the  wide  world.  The 
inconsistency  of  this  ])ractice,  I  think,  must  arrest  the  attention 
of  ever^  r  eilccting  mind,  and  is,  I  have  no  doubt,  one  cause  why 
f>omc  do  not  join  ^cm  in  tlieir  labours. 


21 


On  the  subject  of  Mssions,  the  Society  of  Friends  have  never 
been  indifferent ;  for  though  they  have  not  joined  in  the  attempt, 
to  convert  the  natives  of  Birniah  or  Hindostan,  thousjh  they  have 
sent  no  Missionary  to  Java,  China,  or  Japan,  yet  they  have  not 
been  idle  at  Iwme,  They  are  not  opposed  to  missions.  Under 
circumstances  which  are  deemed  warrantable  or  auspicious,  they 
are  friendly  to  them.  And  I  think  that  Pail's'*  benevolent 
mind  ought  not  to  be  pained  because  they  do  not  join  with  others 
in  the  work.  So  that  they  do  their  share  of  the  business,  the 
Christian  Philanthropist  will  be  satisfied.  Friends  have  on  this 
continent,  at  tlie  present  moment,  at  least  four  settlements  among 
the  Indian  natives,  which  have  been  maintained  at  a  vast  expense^ 

Paul,"  I  suppose,  did  not  know  of  this  :  indeed  how  could  he 
know  it  ?  They  have  had  no  Missionary  Herald  to  tell  the  world 
w  hat  they  have  been  doing  in  the  case  :  they  have  not  been  ask- 
ing charitable  contributions  through  the  towns  and  villages  of 
tlie  United  States,  for  the  support  of  their  institutions,  or  1  sup- 
pose their  labours  in  this  concern  would  have  been  known  and 
duly  appreciated.  The  Society  has  annually,  I  may  say,  hund- 
reds of  Jlissimaries  as  the  term  is  now  used,  who  travel  abroad 
in  the  service  of  the  gospel,  by  which  means  the  remotest  settle- 
ments are  visited  and  their  brethren  and  others  are  ministered  to 
as  occasion  requires.  These,  having  received  mercy  at  their 
Lord's  hand,  go  forth  under  the  sacred  obligation  oi gratitude  to 
Him ;  they  minister  freely,  in  the  ability  received,  botli  in  spirit- 
ual and  temporal  things ;  they  invite  people,  not  to  come  to  them, 
but  to  come  unto  Christ,  that  divine  fountain  of  living  water, 
which  God  hath  opened  in  the  soul,  and  to  drink  of  that  heaven- 
ly stream    without  money  and  without  price." 

Having  shown  that  the  Society  of  friends  have  not  been  un- 
mindful of  the  objects  of  Bible  and  Missionary  Societies,  I  in- 
tend in  my  next  essay  to  give  some  of  the  reasons  why  they  have 
not  extended  their  Missionary  labours  beyond  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope. 

AMICUS. 

Salurday^  June  9, 1821. 

LETTER  V. 

ON  BIBLE  AND  MISSIONARY  SOCIETIES. 

It  would  be  truly  gratifying  to  my  feelings,  from  time  to  time, 
like  *'  Amicus,"  to  make  prefaces  and  apologies.  But  I  have 
neither  time  nor  room.  If  my  expressions  are  sometimes  harsh, 
so  were  those  of  my  apostolic  namesake,  and  I  know  that  m\ 


22 


spirit  is  full  of  love.  The  Searcher  of  hearts  is  my  witness  liow 
pure  are  my  motives  in  these  letters,  and  how  sincere  is  ray  de- 
sire for  your  salvation. 

And  does  "  Amicus"  really  suppose,  he  has  proved  that  your 
body,  as  a  body,  are  the  friends  of  Bible  and  Missionary  Socie- 
ties!  Or  does  he  from  his  heart,  believe  that  such  is  the  fact  ? 
A  few  (a  very  few)  of  your  society,  in  England  and  America, 
have  stood  up  as  the  vindicators  and  promoters  of  this  cause.  1 
admit,  and  rejoice  to  admit  the  interesting  fact.  But  in  this 
they  were  never  imitated  by  the  mass  of  their  brethren.  So  sin- 
gular was  the  sight  of  a  professed  Friend,  taking  an  active  pub- 
lic part  in  these  societies,  that  the  names  of  the  individuals  have 
been  frequently  and  honorably  mentioned  in  their  published  Re- 
ports. A  Reynolds,  a  Pole,  an  Allen,  and  others,  have  done 
themselves  much  honor,  and  the  cause  much  serv  ice ;  but  what 
have  you  done  as  a  Society  ?  I  am  bold  to  say,  that  while  a  few 
individuals  have  pursued  a  different  course,  as  a  body  you  have 
condemned  and  opposed  these  institutions,  and  do,  to  this  hour, 
disapprove  of  them  as  dangerous  schemes. 

In  proof,  I  ask  what  have  you  ever  done  for  the  Bible  Society 
in  this  State?  Wliile  hundreds  of  families  down  the  Peninsula 
are  destitute  of  the  Scriptures,  and  while  all  other  denomina- 
tions, except  the  Roman  Catholic,  have  joined  in  circulating  the 
w  ord  of  life,  only  three  or  four  individuals  of  your  numerous  and 
wealthy  community  have  ever  contributed  to  its  funds,  and  not 
one  (I  believe)  has  ever  honored  its  meetings  with  his  presence. 
Individuals,  when  asked  the  reasons  of  their  refusal,  have  inti- 
mated tlieir  reluctance  to  associate  with  those  from  whom,  in 
other  things,  they  so  widely  differed,"  their  fear  that  the  Bible 
would  "encourage  wars,"  &c.  How  often  do  your  public  speak- 
ers denounce  these  institutions  ?  How  long  is  it  since  Elias  Hicks, 
a  very  popular  "  public  Friend," — of  whom,  one  of  your  mem- 
bers says,  tliat  "  he  could  write  as  good  scripture  as  the  Apostle 
Paul" — how  long  is  it  since  he,  before  a  large  assembly  in  your 
Borough,  made  an  open  attack  on  all  Bible,  Missionary,  Tract, 
and  other  Associations,  to  the  great  grief  of  other  denomina- 
tions, (whom  you  had  been  careful  to  invite,)  but  manifest  grati- 
fication of  your  own  ? 

Shall  I  add,  there  is  at  this  time,  in  Philadelphia,  a  publica- 
tion, which,  according  to  the  statement  of  the  editor,  has  a  sub- 
scription amounting  to  more  than  eight  hundred,  whose  avowed 
and  steadily  pursued  ob  ject,  is  to  oppose  all  those  benevolent  in- 
stitutions which  characterize  the  present  age;  a  publication 
written  principally  by  Friends  (as  is  evident  from  their  doc- 
trines, their  "  plain  language,"  and  other  circumstances,) 
Avhicb  is  circulated  in  Wilmington  to  considerable  extent,  and  is 


2,3 


patronized  almost  entirely  by  friends  and — infidels  I  This  pub- 
lication, which,  as  assiduously  as  a  bee,  sucks  poison  from  thp 
lips  of  slander;  and  with  letters  from  the  Indian  Red  Jackei;, 
from  General  Wilkinson,  and  other  pagans  and  infidels,  pre- 
pares a  monthly  treat  for  the  enemies  of  Missions,  a  leading 
Friend  in  your  town,  said,  *'if  he  had  fifty  cliildren,  it  should 
be  the  first  book  he  would  put  into  their  hands!"  In  the  last 
number  of  the  above  work,  the  first  page,  William  Allen,  of 
England,  is  condemned  for  taking  part  in  anniversary  meetings, 
and  the  hope  is  expressed,  tliat  the  censure  "  will  have  its  use 
in  checking  a  disposition  now  too  prevalent,  to  take  a  part  and 
be  distinguislied  in  some  of  the  specious  institutions,  wliich  at 
this  time  so  much  abound."  And  in  page  138,  Elias  Hicks  says, 
^*  It  is  my  unshaken  belief,  that  Bible  and  Missionary  Societies, 
are  viore  pernicicnis  to  the  real  spread  of  the  true  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  more  oppressive  than  all  the  gambling  and  horse  racing  in  the 
country."  And  yet  the  Friends  are  in  favor  of  Bible  societies! 
With  just  as  much  propriety  may  we  say,  the  Roman  Catholics 
are  patrons  of  the  same,  because  Leander  Van  Ess,  and  a  few 
others,  in  defiance  of  the  Pope's  bulls,  in  opposition  to  nine 
tenths  of  their  body,  and  in  direct  contradiction  to  their  creed, 
join  with  Prutestants  in  tliis  glorious  work  :  or  that  the  Jews 
w  ere  friendly  to  Christianity,  because  the  twelve  Apostles  belong- 
ed to  their  nation !  No,  the  Friends,  as  a  body,  are  the  enemies 
and  opposers  of  one  of  the  noblest  and  grandest  institutions  ever 
organized. 

Your  distribution  of  Bibles  and  other  publications  among  your 
members,  like  your  missions  among  yourselves,  is  very  well ; 
but  in  this,  what  do  you  more  than  other  denominations  do  for 
themselves  ?  The  Society  which  does  not  provide  for  itself,  like 
the  man  that  does  not  provide  for  his  own  house,  is  worse  than 
an  infidel."  The  Methodists  have  a  large  Book  Depaitment," 
and  annually  circulate  through  their  churches,  especially  m  the 
Western  country,  great  numbers  of  books  and  bibles;*  but  do 
they  call  tliis  a  Bible  Society  !  by  no  means ;  they  never  con- 
sider this  as  superseding  the  necessity  of  benevolent  exertions 
to  benefit  strangers  and  the  heathen.  The  Bible  Societies  of 
which  I  spoke,  and  which  I  charge  you  as  opposing,  are  estab- 
lishments for  the  general  and  nniversal  good,  w  ithout  reference, 
to  sect  or  party.  As  the  object  is  to  circulate  the  Bible  without 
note  or  amiment,  in  it  all  denominations  ought  to  join,  and  in  it 
all  other  denominations  have  joined.  And  I  still  think  it  an 
act  of  "  unsocial  separation"  in  you,  not  to  assist  in  this  miglity 
work,  and  very  unkind  and  unchristian  to  oppose  others  because 
^hey  do  not  work  in  your  way ! 

As  to  missions— .You  employ  ^•  hundreds  of  missionaries  to 


^4. 


Ii-avel  abroad  and  minister  to  your  brethren  and  others.'*  The 
methodists  employ  thousands  in  the  same  way  but  can  any  one 
suppose  these  are  the  "Missionary  societies"  to  which  I  refer- 
red in  my  first  Letter?  If  so,  they  are  mistaken.  I  value  as 
higlily  as  any  man  missions  at  home;  but  I  know  no  reason  to 
condemn  missions  abroad.  It  is  right  to  love  our  friends  and 
acquaintances;  but  where  is  the  sin  of  embracing  stranf;ers  also 
in  the  arms  of  our  affection?  On  the  contrary,  I  think  the  spirit 
of  missions  the  very  spirit  which  brought  a  Saviour  to  our 
world,  the  very  spirit  which  brought  tlie  gospel  from  Judea  to 
the  Gentile  nations,  and  the  spirit  without  which  the  present 
heathen  world  will  never  be  evangelized.  That  charity  which 
V  ends  at  home  is  not  the  charity  which  I  admire, — nor  the  charity 
of  those  whom  you  condemn. 

But  you  have,  also,  missionaries  abroad.  No  less  than  **  four 
settlements  among  the  natives  have  been  maintained  at  a  vast 
expense.^'  Ah  !  here  is  some  mistake  !  What !  do  you  employ 
hirelings  ! !  do  you  "  maintain"  ministers  and  missionaries, 
and  that  too  "  at  a  vast  expense."  Will  it  not  be  very  wrong 
in  the  natives  to  attend  meetings,  and  thus  "  countenance"  these 
mercenary"  men  t  Has  that  statute  of  our  Lord,  ever  been  re- 
pealed, Freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give  ?"  Cannot  your 
missionaries,  as  well  as  ours  live  on  air? — Of  this,  another  time- 
After  all,  where  are  these  missions  ?  what  have  they  accom- 
plished? Amicus"  is  right,  I  never  heard  of  them;  at  any 
rate,  if  I  have  heard  of  o?ie  in  Canada,  I  never  heard  of  its  suc- 
eess ;  and  I  fear  the  reason  was  not  for  want  of  a  '*  Herald," 
but  of  something  to  fill  a  herald  with.  I  fear,  unlike  the  apostle 
Paul,  and  other  ancient  missionaries  who  went  every  wher& 
preaching  the  word,  in  season  and  out  of  season,"  they  have 
held  too  many  silent  meetings."  and  made  more  use  of  tlic 
plough  Mud  harrow  in  christianizing  the  natives,  than  of  tlie  gos- 
pel of  Christ !  I  mean  not  to  jidicidef  I  am  truly  serious,  in  sup- 
posing the  weapons  you  use,  are  not  the  weapons  which  the^ 
Apostles  used  ;  not  those  which  ever  have  prospered,  or  ever  will 
prosper  in  the  conversion  of  tlie  Pagan  world.  You  do  not 
preach  those  plain,  pungent,  soul-humbling  doctrines  which  the 
Apostles  i)reached,  nor  use  those  ordinances  which  bind  the  soul 
to  duty.  However,  in  what  you  have  done,  either  in  the  Bible 
®r  Missionary  cause,  I  sincerely  rejoice ;  and  only  wish  you 
would  do  more;  and  without  censure,  suffer  others  to  do  some- 
thing too.  If  your  labors  have  been  great,  and  tliose  labors 
blessed,  why  not  glorify  God  by  publishing  what  he  has  done? 
why  hide  your  light  under  a  bushel,"  why  not  set  it  on  a 
c?andlestick,"  that  your  light  may  shine"  and  all  '*sceyoi(r 
good  works  ?"   There  is  no  need  of    blowing  a  trumpet  before 


23 


you,"  nor  of  Pharisaical  boasting,  but  do  something  to  "  pro- 
voke others  to  love  and  good  works."  In  some  future  Letter,  I 
will  show  that  collections  in  churches,  and  the  most  earnest 
be^gin^  for  donations,  hath  both  rational  and  apostolic  sanction. 

PAUL. 

^'vertli'dajyCth  Mo.  g.  iS2t. 

LETTER  III. 

From  the  intentions  expressed  in  my  last  communication,  it 
will  now  be  expected  that  I  should  give  some  reasons  why  the 
society  of  Friends  do  not  extend  their  missionary  labours  beyond 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  Our  charity,  it  may  be  said,  should 
be  as  extensive  as  the  exigencies  that  demand  it,  why  then  con- 
fine it  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  ? 

As  friends  in  a  collective  capacity  have  never  expressed  their 
sentiments  on  this  point,  I  can  only  give  my  particular  views 
in  the  case,  in  doing  w  hich  I  shall  undoubtedly  express  the  opini- 
on of  a  large  number  of  my  fellow  professors. 

The  conversion  of  the  Heathen  to  pure  Christianity  is  certain- 
ly very  desii*able :  and  I  believe  consistently  with  the  divine 
prediction  in  the  second  chapter  of  Daniel,  that  the  stone  which 
was  cut  out  of  the  mountain  without  hands^  that  smote  the  im- 
age and  broke  it  in  pieces,  so  that  it  became  like  the  chaff  of  the 
summer  threshing  floor,  shall  itself  in  due  time  become  a  great 
mountain  and  fill  the  whole  earth.  But  I  also  believe  that 
ill  timed  measures,  or  unqualified  instruments  instead  of  hasten- 
ing that  great  day  may  tend  to  retard  it.  It  is  not  only  essen- 
tial to  the  successful  prosecution  of  a  charitable  work  that  the 
object  be  desirable  and  even  feasible — it  is  absolutely  necessary 
that  at  least  three  important  circumstances  should  concur  to 
warrant  the  undertaking. — First,  it  should  be  well  timed — se- 
condly, the  instruments  of  its  accomplishment  should  be  adapted 
to  the  service — and  thirdly,  the  subject  of  our  bounty  should  be 
prepared  to  receive  it.  If  either  of  these  requisites  should  be 
wanting  the  enterprise  must  fail. 

Now  in  the  first  place  I  think  the  measures  ill  timed.  The 
blood  of  the  natives  of  India  shed  by  tlte  hands  of  professed 
Christians  has  hardly  had  time  to  dry  on  the  soil  of  their  an- 
cestors, now  under  the  control  of  their  rapacious  invaders.  It 
is  computed  that  more  than  a  million  of  the  natives  since  the 
British  invaded  Hindostan  have  been  cruelly  sacrificed  by  the 
professed  followers  of  that  meek  and  lowly  Saviour,  who  is  now 
held  up  to  their  view  as  the  great  object  of  their  faith.  The 
4 


56 


jCliristiau  character  is  always  most  indelibly  impressed  by  thfe 
weight  of  example — And  what  kind  of  example  has  been  ex- 
hibited to  the  poor  Hindoo  since  the  invasion  of  his  country  by 
the  professors  of  Christianity  ?  Those  who  are  in  the  least  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  that  country  need  not  be  told  !  Can 
any  one  believe  that  with  scenes  of  violence  and  oppression  con- 
stantly before  him — with  burning  towns  and  hamlets  passing  in 
review  before  the  eye  of  memory — his  butchei'ed  and  famished 
relatives  and  friends  pressing  with  deadly  weight  on  his  recol- 
lection— I  say  can  any  one  believe  under  these  circumstances 
that  the  natives  of  India  can  now  be  prepared  to  receive  favour- 
able impressions  of  our  holy  religion  ?  In  general  they  must 
view  the  name  of  Christian  as  the  representative  of  every  thing 
that  is  cruel  and  savage  and  unjust — it  can  hardly  have  on« 
amiable  and  lovely  trait  to  recommend  it  to  their  favourable 
attention — tliey  must  as  instinctively  shudder  at  the  name  of 
Christ"  as  the  philanthropic  missionary  does  at  the  name  oi 
Juggernaut. 

In  the  next  place  I  think  the  instruments  sent  for  the  conver- 
sion of  India  are  not  adapted  to  the  service.  The  ambassador 
of  Christ  must  necessarily  go  under  the  character  of  a  Chris- 
tian. It  was  men  under  this  character  who  invaded  the  Hindoo 
ten^tory,  and  spread  desolation  among  their  towns  and  hamlets 
^ — it  was  men  under  this  character  wiio  butchered  and  starved 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  their  innocent  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, whose  pale  phaiitoms  haunted  the  imagination  of  the  in- 
famous lord  Clive  to  the  grave.  It  is  men  uiuler  this  character 
who  still  hold  them  under,  their  domination,  and  wlio  by  num- 
berless taxes  and  impositions  of  various  kinds,  wrest  from  them 
the  hard  earned  produce  of  their  labour  !  Can  we  believe  tliat 
under  such  circumstances  the  missionaries  sent  amongst  them 
will  make  a  favourable  impression  on  the  minds  of  the  Hindoos  ? 
He  who  can  believe  they  will,  must  have  more  sanguine  hopes 
than  mine.  I  can  hardly  believe  that  the  Jpostle  Faul  himself, 
could  we  send  him  there  under  such  disadvantages  would  be  a 
successful  missionary.  We  can  scarcely  suppose  that  our  mis- 
sionaries are  qualified  to  work  miracles — and  without  a  miracle 
tliey  cannot  succeed. 

And  lastly,  under  these  circumstances  I  cannot  suppose  the 
inhabitants  of  India  are  prepai-ed  to  receive  the  intended  boun- 
ty. An  insurmountable  weight  of  prejudice  must  exist  against  us 
—a  secret  detestation  of  tiie  Christian  character,  which  many 
years  will  not  remove.  These  views  arc  strengthened  by  authen- 
tic statements  of  the  situation  of  religious  concerns  in  Hindos- 
tan  and  the  Birman  Empii*e.  At  Rangoon  where  all  religious 
Bocieties^'c  freely  tolerated  ;  a  missionary  establishment  has 


tixitjted  about  twelve  years,  on  which  large  sums  liave  been  ex- 
pended— and  wliat  have  been  the  fruits  I  More,  certainly,  than 
could  reasonably  liave  been  expected.  In  these  twelve  years 
three  natives  were  baptized — one  professed  to  believe  the  i^ospel 
—and  another  had  advanced  so  far  in  opposition  to  hi^  well 
founded  prejudices  against  us  as  to  become  an  inquirer^  but  final- 
ly rejected  our  religion.  From  Hindostan  we  have  more  flat- 
tering accounts  than  this,  but  we  must  recollect  that  those  Hin- 
doos wliose  conversion  we  sometimes  hear  of,  are  very  little 
removed  from  a  state  of  slavery  or  vassalage — they  have  other 
and  more  powerful  reasons  for  professing  to  be  Christians  than 
the  love  tliey  bear  to  Christ. — SVere  they  as  free  to  choose  or 
refuse — were  they  as  comfortably  circumstanced  nnder  their 
rulers  as  the  Birmans — and  had  no  more  temporal  inducements" 
to  cliange  their  religion  than  they,  I  believe  the  result  would  b<^ 
jQO  better.  They  would  soon  return  to  the  worship  of  their 
country's  idols,  less  terrible  to  them  tlian  the  object  of  Chris- 
tian adoration. 

We  have  heard  much  of  the  human  sacrifices  offered  to  Jug- 
gernaut, and  have  read  some  of  the  pathetic  accounts  of  the 
sickly,  miserable  self-devoted  victims  who  expire  under  his  car-. 
But  what  are  these  to  the  millions,  I  say  millions  of  human  sa- 
crifices which  within  the  last  fifty  years  in  India  and  Europe 
and  America  have  been  offered  up  to  the  idol  of  War,  or  rather 
to  the  demon  of  Avarice  and  Ambition  by  the  professed  folio w^- 
ers  of  a  non-resisting  Saviour !  What  are  these  in  the  scale  of 
intellect,  or  in  comparison  of  numbers,  to  the  innumerable  mul- 
titude, whose  bones  lie  bleaching  on  the  plains  of  Europe  and 
Amei'ica  !  Really  when  I  view  the  Christian  cliaracter  as  ex- 
tiibited  on  the  page  of  history,  or  as  practically  delineated  by 
living  example,  I  think  it  should  make  us  pause  and  solemnly 
consider  whether  we  are  Christians.  XwA  if  we  can  seriously 
believe  we  are  so,  whether  our  hands  are  sufficiently  clean  to 
bear  to  the  Hindoo,  the  Birman  and  Chinese  the  pure  Gospel  of 
a  spotless  Saviour  !  If  they  are  not,  tlien  shall  we  by  attempts 
in  this  way  only  rivet  their  prejudices  against  Christianity,  and 
thus  extend  tlie  reign  of  dai'kne  »s  and  confusion.  We  shall 
make  converts,  not  to  the  religion  of  the  blessed  Messiah,  but  to 
the  dark  state  of  the  formalist  and  tlie  hypocrite, — we  shall 

compass  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte,  and  when  he  is 
made,  we  shall  make  him  two  fold  more  the  child  of  hell  than 
he  was." 

If  the  natives  of  India  are  capable  of  reflection,  if  they  have 
minds  to  discriminate  between  the  nature  of  the  gospel  ])recepts 
and  our  pi'acticc,  they  must  see  our  inconsistency  and  abhor  it 
— if  they  are  not  capable  of  reflection  they  are  not  fit  subjects 


2» 

of  Christian  insti^uction  :  in  either  case  they  cannot  t)e  prepar- 
ed to  receive  us  as  the  Ministers  of  our  sublime  and  holy  religion. 

If  Christians  wish  to  be  serviceable  to  the  natives  of  India^ 
let  them  begin  by  setting  a  consistent  example ;  let  them  demon- 
strate by  works  the  blessed  efficacy  of  Christian  Faith ;  let  them 
return  to  tlie  inhabitants  their  civil  and  political  rights  ;  let  them 
abolish  their  taxes  and  imposts  of  all  kinds — even  the  revenues 
raised  from  the  worsliip  of  the  detestable  Juggernaut — instead 
of  wTCsting  from  them  the  hard  earned  fruits  of  their  labour  to 
the  annual  amount  of  four  million,  two  hundred  and  ten  thou- 
sand pounds  sterling,  (a  sum  surpassing  the  whole  revenue  of 
the  United  States)  let  them  demonstrate  to  the  objects  of  their 
concern,  that  they  understand  and  practice  upon  that  benign 
precept  of  their  Lord  when  he  said  ^*  It  is- more  blessed  to  give 
than  to  receive  let  them  give  such  solid  proofs  of  their  sinceri- 
ty and  benevolence,  and  then  if  the  Society  of  Friends  do  not 
join  in  the  good  work  of  enlightening  the  benighted  inhabitants 
of  India  it  ^^  ill  be  time  enough  to  demand  of  them  a  reason  of 
their  inactivity. 

AMICUS. 


Saturday y  June  j6,  1827. 

LETTER  VL 

ON  THE  lord's  SUPPEiS. 

As  tilcre  are  many  subjects  of  superior  importance,  which  1 
wisli  to  bring  before  your  minds,  and  as  I  have  already  devoted 
one  letter  to  the  subject  of  Missions  and  Bible  Societies,  I  shall 
defer  a  full  ansAver  to  tlie  late  remarks  of  Amicus,"  to  some 
future  number.  It  is  sufficient,  for  the  present,  to  observe  that 
all  his  objections,  on  the  score  of  difficulties^  drawn  from  tlie  un- 
favourableness  of  tlie  time,  the  character  of  the  instmments,  and 
the  prejudices  of  the  lieathen,  are  fully  answered  by  the  actual 
success  of  missions  among  the  Hottentots,  the  Ebo  Nation,  our 
Western  Indians,  the  Greenlaiiders,  the  South  Sea  Islanders,  and 
his  own  unconvertible  Hindoos, — by  the  unusual  willingness  of 
many  nations  to  receive  tlie  gospel — by  the  success  of  twelve 
despised  Jews  of  old, — and  by  the  consideration  that  our  hope  of 
success  is  not  in  the  preacher^  but  the  gospel,  not  in  man,  but  God, 
With  these  remarks,  let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  another 
ordinance  of  Christ,  which,  to  your  own  and  the  church's  in- 
jury, you  neglect. 

That  the  Saviour  never  intended  that  the  outward  ordinance 
of  the  Ijord's  Supper  should  be  perpetuated  in  his  Church,  ih'M: 


29 


the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  never  enjoined  this  institution, 
and  that  there  is  neither  profit  nor  propriety  in  the  ordinance, 
as  now  observed,  your  writers  and  -preachers  continually  teach, 
and  your  universal  practice  unequivocally  proclaims. 

The  objections  to  this  ordinance  you  have  too  often  heard  to 
need  a  repetition  ;  the  arguments  in  its  favour,  I  feai^  some  of 
you  have  never  weighed.  Whether  you  have  or  not,  on  such  an 
important  subject,  let  me  entreat  you,  weigh  them  once  more. 
How  can  you  answer  the  argument  drawTi  : — 

First,  From  the  Institution  and  express  command  of  Jesus 
Christ  ?  The  authority  of  any  one  of  the  Evangelists,  to  all 
who  believe  their  inspiration,  is  a  sufficient  voucher  for  any  fact. 
But  on  this  subject,  three  have  given  their  decided  testimony, 
see  Matt.  xxvi.  26.  Mark  xiv.  22.  and  Luke  xxii.  19.  The 
passages  are  too  long  to  quote,  but  too  plain  and  too  well  known 
to  need  quoting.  That  the  Saviour  really  took  material  bread  and 
material  wine,  and  said  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body; — this  is  my' 
blood,  drink  ye  all  of  it"  this  do  inremembrance  ofmCf'^  you  can- 
not but  admit.  Here  then  w  e  have  the  institution  and  a  command 
to  obsei'^  e  it.  If  you  prefer  the  term  request''  to  <^  command," 
I  have  no  objection  !  for  a  request  from  a  dying  Redeemer,  to  all 
who  love  him,  will  equal  a  command.  Object.  He  only  request- 
ed them  to  do  it  that  time,  and  not  to  continue  it  after  his  death." 
Ans.  Where  then  is  the  force  of  the  word  "  Remembrance  ?" 
Does  it  not  refer  to  things  past,  and  imply  that,  according  to 
the  form  he  now^  gave,  they  should  keep  it  with  deep  interest  a/- 
ter  his  death  ?  At  present  they  could  not  remember"  his  death 
(which  was  the  chief  thing  represented  by  the  feast)  as  that 
death  had  not  yet  taken  place.  If  you  say,  **  it  was  a  mere 
spiritual  remembrance  he  required,"  you  neglect  the  force  of  an- 
other word  in  this  command :  Do  "  ?Ais" — what  I  now  do — take 
material  bread  and  wine,  and  eat  and  drink  corporeally,  while 
in  spirit  you  remember  the  things  signified  by  the  broken  bread 
and  poured  out  wine.  He  does  not  merely  say,  "  Remember 
me  ;"  but  do  this  in  remembrance  of  me."  If  here  is  not  a 
command  to  observe  an  outward  ordinance,  I  know  not  in  what 
words  it  could  have  been  expressed.  Again,  if  the  Lord  Jesus 
did  not  intend  to  continue,  and  did  not  attach  much  importance 
to  this  ordinance,  account,  if  you  can — 

Secondly.  For  his  revelation  and  repetition  of  it,  some  years 
after,  to  the  Apostle  Paul.  The  Apostle  declares.  Gal.  1.  12  : 
that  he  received  all  his  docti'ines  **  not  from  man,  but  by  the 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ."  And  in  1  Cor.  xi.  23.  he  says  he 
received  this  very  ordinance,  in  the  very  words  and  form  given 
in  the  Evangelists,  from  the  same  divine  authority.  **  For  1 
received  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  which  I  delivered  unto, you. 


tStc/'  Here  is  sanction  upon  sanction  to  authorize  our  celebra- 
tion, and  condemn  your  neglect  of  this  solemn  feast.  How  do 
you  account — 

Thirdly,  For  its  ohsei^ance  hy  the  primitive  Church  ?  We 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  first  converts  to  Christiani- 
ty, especially  the  Gentiles,  took  tbeir  ordinances  as  well  as  their 
doctrines  immediately  from  Apostolic  lips*  Now  we  find  Chris- 
tians every  where  observing  this  feast.  At  Jerusalem  we  find 
them  bi'eaking  bread  from  house  to  house."  (Acts  ii.  46.)  .Iso 
at  Troas,  (Acts  xx.  7.)  •*  On  the  first  day  of  the  week  the  dis- 
ciples came  together  to  break  bread,  and  Paul  preached" — and 
(v.  11.)  "  broke  bread."  Can  any  one  suppose  that  the 
Xiord's  day  would  be  appointed  for  any  common  meal ;  or  that 
the  holy  Apostle,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow,"  would 
spend  his  time  in  eating  and  dnnking  in  any  other  than  a  sacra^ 
mental  way  ?  But  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  we  have  de- 
cisive proof.'  More  than  twenty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
Tve  find  the  Corinthians  celebrating  and  the  Apostle  regulating 
this  feast :  1  Cor.  xi.  23 — 34.  He  here  says  expressly,  that  he 
had  delivered'^  it  unto  tlieni.  And  in  1  Cor.  x.  16.  he  speaks 
as  if  it  was. the  common  practice  of  the  whole  church,  the  cup 
which  we  bless,  the  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
^nion  of  the  blood  and  body  of  Christ  ?" — in  contradistinction 
from  idolaters,  who  drank  "the  cup"  and  partook  of  "the 
table  of  devils."  Here  then  we  have  the  practice  of  the  primi-. 
live  Christians  and  the  sanction,  of  the  Apostles  many  years  after 
our  Saviour's  death.  Do  your  teachers  better  know  the  will  of 
God  than  the  Apostle  Paul  ? — or  have  }  ou  received  some  new„ 
additional  and  contradictory  revelation  ?  He  "  received  of  the 
Lord  Jesus"  to  "  deliver"  this  ordinance  unto  us  :  have  you 
received  of  the  Lord  Jesus"  to  set  it  aside  ?  If  not,  we  in-: 
treat  you,  keep  this  feast  : — for 

Fourthly,  It  must  be  continued  till  Christ  come  again.  If  Christ 
had  not  told  us  it  should  be  perpetual,  since  his  blood  was  shed 
and  his  body  bruised  for  us  as  well  as  for  the  primitive  church, 
reason  would  teach  the  propriety  of  our  using  the  symbols  of  his 
death  as  well  as  they.  But  he  has  not  left  us  in  any  doubt  or 
darkness  on  the  subject.  The  Apostle  hath  expressly  told  us, 
1  Cor.  xi.  26.  to  keep  this  feast  until  he  come,"  I  am  not  ig- 
norant of  your  interpretations — "  until  he  come  to  destroy  Jeru- 
salem— until  he  come  by  his  Holy  Spirit — until  he  come  with  full 
illumination  and  establishment  in  the  faith ;"  but  to  these  con-^ 
structions  I  never  can  assent.  Not  to  the  first,  because  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  repeal  of  cer- 
emonies, all  such  having  been  repealed  at  the  death  of  Christ : — 
riot  to  the  second,  because  he  had  come  in  this  sense,  on  the  day 


31 


of  Pentecost,  twenty  years  before ; — nor  to  the  third  (wliidi  iai 
your  main  defence,)  because  the  phrase  is  never  thus  used  else- 
where in  scripture,  and  it  is  a  mere  gratuitous  assertion,  to  say 
that  it  is  so  used  here,  and  because  th'  apostle  Paul  v,  as  certain- 
ly an  established  christian,  and  hiid  fidl  illumination,  and  yet  he 
observed  and  delivered  this  ordinance.  Besides,  suppose  Christ 
does  come  to  a  christian  with  as  full  illumination  as  he  e\  er  came 
to  man,  or  comes  to  any  of  yoit,  why  should  this  supersede  the 
ordinance.  Our  distinct  knawLedge  and  ardent  love  of  Christ 
would  supersede  the  necessity  of  memorials.'' — And  the 
views  of  any  lovers  of  Christ  be  more  distinct,  their  love  more 
ardent,  than  were  those  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  who  heard  him, 
saw  him,  handled  him  for  years,  and  loved  him  more  than  life  r 
And  yet  to  these  very  twelve,  he  gave  these  memorials  !  If  need- 
ful and  useful  to  them,  are  they  not  needful  to  you?  So  long  as. 
he  withholds  his  -cisiUe  bodily  presence,  so  long  these  striking 
emblems  of  himself  will  never  cease  to  be  of  use  to  his  holiest 
followei-s.  The  "  coming,"  therefore,  of  which  he  speaks,  is 
not  his  coming  by  his  spirit,  but  his  visible  appearance  at  the  last 
day,  to  call  the  world  to  judgment,  and  take  all  his  chosen  to 
himself.  The  ordinance  therefore,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual. 
or  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  draw  an  argument — 
Fifthly,    From  the  utility  of  this  ordinance.    This  appears 
from  its  nature  and  design.    First,  it  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  the 
divine  covenant.    ^' This  cup  is  the  Testament  {or  cove- 

nant) in  my  blood ;"  just  as  he  said  of  dramcision,  (Gen.  xvii. 
10, 13  :)  This  is  my  covenant"  which  shall  be  in  your  flesh," 
as  if  he  had  said,  This  is  the  sign  and  seal  of  my  covenant." 
The  Lord's  supper  is  a  seal  on  the  part  of  God,  to  fulfil  all  the 
promises,  and  on  ours  to  perform  all  the  duties  of  the  covenant 
of  which  it  is  a  seal.  Thus  it  operates  as  a  powerful  stimulus 
to  duty  toward  ourselves,  and  faith  towards  God. 

Again,  it  is  useful  as  an  exhibition  of  the  doctrine  of  atonement^ 
(as  baptism  is  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.)  "  So  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  sJiow  forth  the  Lord's 
death."  And  I  cannot  but  agree  with  Doddridge,  that,  <'so 
long  as  an  ordinance  which  has  so  plain  a  reference  to  the  sat- 
isfaction of  Christ,  and  does  such  honour  to  ihis  fundamental  doc- 
trine  of  the  gospel,  is  continued  in  the  church,  so  long  it  will  be 
impossible  to  root  that  doctrine  out  of  the  minds  of  plain  humble 
christians  by  any  little  artifices"  or  Socinian  criticisms.  And 
I  cannot  but  think,  if  yon  administered  and  explained  this  ordi- 
nance to  your  people,  the  now  almost  banished  doctnne  of  the 
cross  and  of  imputed  rightemisness  would  soon  be  honored  and 
restoi^d. 


32 


Lastly,  this  ordinance,  as  well  as  baptism,  is  useful  as  a  badgs 
of  Christianity,  One  object  of  these  ordinances,  was  to  sepa- ^ 
rate  Christ's  followers  from  the  woj*ld,  to  make  them  visible. 
and  compel  them  to  profess  the  essential  doctrines  of  his  gos- 
pel. And  though  I  have  no  do^ibt  there  are  many  saints  in  hea- 
ven and  earth  who  never  wore  these  badges,  1  have  my  doubts 
whether  such  form  any  part  of  the  visible  christian  church.  If 
the  mere  acknowledgment  of  a  God,  and  some  vague  profession . 
of  religion  constitute  a  social  body  a  church,  why  not  give  this 
title  iK^ihe Masonic  Lodge?  (I  mean  nothing  invidious  to  you,  or 
disrespectful  to  them.)  They  make  a  general  profession  of  re- 
ligion, reject  atheists  and  sometimes  deists  from  their  institution^ 
< — have  a  strictly  moral  and  even  religious  code  of  discipline — 
are  bound  by  the  strongest  ties  to  mutual  love, — are  very  charit- 
able to  their  own,  and  even  other  poor — ^they  sometimes  pray, 
exhort,  and  what  you  do  not,  they  sing ;  in  short,  when  they 
have  members  present,  whom  the  spirit  moves,  they  haye  as  ma- 
ny religions  exercises  as  yourselves.  Why  not  call  them  a  chris- 
tian church  ?  Suppose  again  a  set  of  sober  deists  should  be  or- 
ganized and  agree  to  meet  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  (not  be- 
cause it  was  holy  time,  but  because  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
country,)  should  pray  and  praise,  and  preach,  and  perform  oth- 
er duties  of  natural  religion^\\\\y  not  call  them  a  christian 
church  ?  Because,  in  admitting  to  membership,  they  do  not 
make  it  essential  to  believe  or  profess  a  single  doctrine  peculiar 
to  Christianity.  Now,  what  you  require  your  members  to  pro- 
fess, I  do  not  know ;  but  this  I  know,  you  could  not  properly 
observe  these  ordinances  without  requiring  faith  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  vicarious  atmemeni 
for  tiie  sins  of  the  world— doctrines  found  in  only  one  religious 
system  upon  earth, 

PAUL. 

Seventh-dag tOth  Afo.  23,1821. 

LETTER  IV. 

AVhen  I  commenced  writing  for  the  Reposit(Try,  I  hoped  that 
the  parties  engaged  in  the  present  discussion  might  perhaps  give 
such  explanations,  of  their  respective  views  and  sentiments,  as 
would  promote  the  harmony  of  different  religious  professors, 
that  they  might  by  exhibiting  sufficient  ground  for  mutual  for- 
bearance, increase  a  spirit  of  amity  and  benevolence.  Harsh 
expressions,"  I  have  detci'!nine<J  to  avoid — tlie>  can  do  no  good^ 
and  may  do  much  hann.    Innuendo  and  invective  in  religious 


discussions,  always  hurt  the  cause  they  are  intended  to  su{)|)ort\ 
Truth  needs  no  such  weapons.  A  spirit  full  of  love,"  would 
not  use  them.  Tliey  excite  the  passions  and  disqualify  eitlier 
for  calm  reflection  or  deep  investigation.  In  my  preceding 
Essays,  I  have  endeavoured  to  sustain  the  character  of  a  can- 
did and  dispassionate  writer — with  **  Paul"  I  have  no  quarrel — 
my  aim  is  to  elucidate  our  views.  In  the  pursuit  of  tliis  ohject, 
if  my  observations  should  sometimes  assume  the  form  of  a  **  pre- 
face," at  others  of  an  apology,"  I  cannot  see  in  such  a  cir- 
cumstance any  cause  of  offence. 

In  my  last  number,  I  gave  some  of  my  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  zeal  which  has  been  excited  on  the  subject  of  foreign 
missions,  is  unseasonable;  as  the  subject  is  important,  I  will 
pursue  it  a  little  further,  and  endeavour  to  show  that  it  is  also 
misdirected. 

When  our  Lord  was  about  to  introduce  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion, it  pleased  Divine  wisdom  to  send  a  messenger  before  him. 

The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  prepare  ye  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight."  The  doctrine  he  preach- 
ed to  the  people,  even  to  those  who  were  to  be  the  instruments  of 
spreading  the  gospel  among  the  heathen,  was,  Repent  ye  for 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  I  have  thought  that  this 
circumstance  might  indicate  to  all  future  generations  the  neces- 
sity of  outward  and  inward  purity  in  those  who  undertake  to 
spread  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  Purity  of  life,  and  innocence 
of  deportment,  a  practical  conformity  to  tlie  precepts  of  our 
Lord  are  the  most  efficient  means  of  raising  the  low  expectations 
of  the  visited,  and  removing  the  most  obstinate  prejudices. 
Without  these  the  vallies  cannot  be  exalted,  the  mountains  be 
brought  low,  the  crooked  things  made  straight,  or  the  rough 
places  smooth,  Luke  iii.  5. 

Now  let  us  pause  a  little  and  contemplate  our  actual  state.' — 
Let  us  see  how  far  we  are  governed  by  the  lavvS  of  that  very 
kingdom  we  are  engaged  to  extend — how  far  we  are  willing  to 
do  justice  at  home,  and  to  extend  this  divine  government  through 
our  own  land.  Here  we  see  One  million  Jive  hundred  thousand 
of  our  fellow  creatures  unjustly  held  in  a  degrading  bondage, 
which  is  entailed  on  their  innocent  posterity.  Here  we  see 
those  who  appear  to  be  anxious  to  spread  the  Bible  among  the 
heathen,  ten  or  fifteen  thousand  miles  from  us,  pronouncing  fine 
and  imprisonment  on  those  who  have  dared  to  instruct  this  be* 
nighted  branch  of  the  human  family  in  our  own  land.  We  are 
manifesting  great  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  immortal  soiils  be- 
yond the  Atlantic,  but  great  indifference  about  those  within  our 
own  shores — Strenuous  efforts  are  making  to  send  help  abroad, 
whilst  the  most  important  field  that  can  possibly  engage  our  at^ 
tontion  remains  a  dark  howling  wUdei'ness  at  homq. 


34 


1  am  not  ignorant  of  the  excuses  made  for  these  inronsisten- 
cics,  nor  can  I  be  blind  to  the  real  cause  of  them.  1  ai.:  also 
aware  of  the  difticulties  that  lie  in  the  way  to  the  emancipation 
and  instruction  of  the  African  race  in  our  own  country  ;  yet  I 
tliink  they  are  not  greater  than  those  which  must  be  encountered 
in  converting  the  inhabitants  of  West  Africa,  Hindostan,  the 
Birman  Empire,  China,  the  South  Sea  Islands  or  Jerusalem, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  our  success  would  be  greater  and  the  ex- 
pense much  less  at  home  than  abroad.  Here  is  a  poor  afflicted 
people,  borne  down  with  grief — friendless  and  unpitied.  How 
sweet  to  their  ears  would  be  the  voice  of  kindness,  how  beauti- 
ful the  feet  of  those  who  should  bring  to  them  the  glad  tidings  of 
the  gospel.  An  immortal  soul  is  as  valuable  in  one  part  of  the 
world  as  m  another.  With  God  there  is  no  respect  of  persons, 
neitlier  should  there  be  Avith  men.  I  know  we  cannot  force  our 
way  to  the  accomplishment  of  this  great  domestice  object,  yet 
the  combined  influence  of  all  religious  societies  in  the  United 
States,  would  go  a  great  way  toward  effecting  it.  Were  all  the 
zeal,  talent,  and  industry  which  is  exerted  in  promoting  foreign 
missions,  bent  to  this  important  subject — were  all  the  means  of 
missionary  heralds,  bible  societies,  and  associations  of  various 
kinds,  devoted  to  this  cause,  on  the  gr  ound  of  religious  princi- 
ple, I  cannot  doubt,  that  we  should  soon  see  measures  pursued 
that  would  convince  all,  of  the  policy,  expediency  and  necessity 
of  such  reformation  at  home,  as  would  gradually  remove  from 
our  national  escutcheon  one  of  the  darkest  spots  tliat  disgrace 
it;  as  would  finally  shake  this  callossal  iiii([uity  to  the  ground, 
and  open  to  the  christian  patriot  a  door  of  hope  for  the  real  and 
permanent  prosperity  of  his  country.  But  until  such  an  expe- 
riment is  made,  until  we  have  fairly  ])roved  tl.at  this  measure  is 
impracticable,  I  cannot  see  why^  we  should  neglect  our  own  busi- 
ness to  go  and  labour  in  a  foreign  country.  Let  us  set  the  cau- 
dle on  our  own  candlestick,  bef  m  c  wc  attempt  to  enlighten  oth- 
ers ;  let  us  **  preach  the  plain,  pungent,  soul  humbling  doctrines 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles"  at  home,  and  put  our  own  family  in 
order  before  we  spend  our  strength  in  attempting  to  rectify  the 
family  of  a  distant  neighbour — let  us  labour  faithfully  in  the  do- 
mestic department,  and  make  our  own  house  clean  before  we 
busy  ourselves  to  sweep  that  of  another.  Thus  others  seeing 
our  good  works,"  without  hearing  our  trnmpet,  may  have  sub- 
stantial and  grateful  cause  to  glorify  our  Father  who  is  in  Hea- 
ven. 

I  remember  to  have  read  many  years  ago  of  a  missionary  who 
was  sent  into  our  westei-n  country  to  ])reac!i  to  the  Indiaft  na- 
tives ;  he  was  accompanfed  by  a  very  resjiectable  member  of  the 
society  who  sent  him.    When  they  arrived  at  the  place  where 


35 


the  locatiou  was  to  have  been  made,  they  opened  to  the  Indians 
their  benevolent  concern  :  the  natives  called  a  council  to  consid- 
er the  subject,  and  after  long  deliberation,  they  sent  a  de])utatiow 
to  their  visitors,  to  inquire  if  the  white  men  did  not  hold  theii- 
black  brothers  in  slavery — the  reply  being  in  the  aftirniative ; 
they  told  them  to  go  home,  set  their  brothers  free,  preach  to  them 
and  malve  them  cliristians  first — then  come  back  io  the  Indians 
and  they  would  listen  to  them.  There  was  so  much  good  sense 
and  justice  in  the  Indian  proposition,  tliat  the  person  who  was 
with  the  missionary,  and  who  at  tliat  time  held  slaves,  immedi- 
ately liberated  them  all — an  example  worthy  of  universal  imita- 
tion. 

Why  (said  our  Lord.)  hcholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy 
brother's  eye,  and  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  thine  own 
eye!  Or  how  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let  me  pull  the  mote 
out  of  tliine  eye,  and  behold  a  beam  is  in  thine  own  eye !  Tliou 
hypocrite ;  first  cast  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye,  and  then 
shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye." 
The  force  of  this  truly  divine  ad.nonition  is  irresistible — how^ 
far  it  is  applicable  to  our  state,  I  willingly  leave  the  serious  rea- 
der to  deternjine. 

AMICUS. 

Sevenlh-day,  6th  Mo.  13,  I8;ix.  • 

LETTER  I. 
TO  '^paul"  and  his  fellow  professors. 

As  Paul  has  taken  upon  himself  the  task  of  instructing  us  in 
the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament,  and  detecting,  as  he  im- 
agines, the  errors  of  our  Christian  profession,  it  must  surely  be 
of  importance  to  us  that  we  should  rightly  understand  him,  on 
a  subject  of  such  magnitude,  especially  if  his  lectures  are  ex- 
pected tQ  have  any  influence  upon  our  conduct.  For  this  pur- 
pose, I  wish  to  propound  a  few  questions  to  this  champion  of  or- 
thodox opinions,  which  if  he  w  ill  be  so  obliging  as  to  answer 
effeduallyf  may  tend  to  lighten  the  burden  of  his  labours,  by 
carrying  conviction  to  our  understandings. 

And  first,  we  are  told  that  the  Bible  or  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  are  the  w  ord  of  God,  and  the  only 
standard  of  religious  truth."  Then  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
every  sect  into  which  the  Christian  world  has  been  divided, 
however  various  and  contradictory  their  doctrines  may  be  to  eacli 
other,  have  all  proved  them  truef  from  this  infallible  rule,  tliis 
supreme  standard  of  faith  ?    If  these  different  sects  be  a  arioUs 


I 


and  contradictory  in  their  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures,  they 
must  i  presume,  be  all  ivraug^  or  some  one  only  right.  For 
Christ  is  not  divided.  And  which  is  that  sect  who  have  attain- 
ed to  the  true  interpretation  ? 

Not  that  I  believe  tliere  is  any  inconsistency  in  the  Bible — 
but  the  question  is,  wliat  causes  these  various  and  contradicto- 
ry interpretations  ?    And  how  is  the  ti-ue  knowledge  of  this 

supreme  standard^'  to  be  arrived  at — seeing  it  is  construed  so 
difi\  rently  ?  Not  by  the  light  of  man's  conscience,  for  this  is  the 
creature  of  habit — it  is  formed  by  education,  and  Friends  never 
set  it  up  as  their  guide  in  these  cases. — Not  by  the  vagaries 
of  a  deceitful  heart,"  for  these  have  led  the  Christian  world  into 
endless  disputes,  and  even  into  wars  **/or  Christ's  sakeJ^  Not  by 
any  interpretation  which  tl»e  Scriptures  give  of  themselves,  for 
this  is  liable  to  be  misconstrued,  as  we  see  from  the  example  of 
all  Christendom. 

But  arc  not  the  seals  to  be  opened  ?  are  not  the  scales  to  be; 
ren:oved  from  our  e^  es  before  we  can  attain  to  a  true  and  saving 
knowledge  of  the  truths,  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  ? — and  if  so, 
by  what  ? 

Asism,  we  are  told  that  we  ought  to  be  baptized  with  water, 
becai  f-e  it  is  coiiimanaea  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  as  a 
star  ding  ordinance  in  the  Church,  and  that  we  may  be  found 
fi gifting  against  God,  if  we  do  not  conform.  Now  we  would 
like  to  know  which  is  the  right  way  of  conforming  to  this  stand- 
ing ordinance  ;  whether  by  immersion,  or  by  sprinkling.  If 
we  are  all  enjoined  to  be  baptized  with  water,  we  ought  to  know^ 
hov  ?  All  thii:gs  necessai  y  to  be  observed  by  the  Jews  were 
well  defined  in  their  law  so  that  no  ambiguity  was  to  be  found 
in  their  statutes  of  standing  obligation  : — and  it  would  seem  to 
me  that  all  essential  duties  of  a  Christian  are  well  defined  ;  but 
I  am  not  able  exactly  to  understand,  how  sprinkling  a  little  wat- 
er in  the  face  can  be  called  baptizing.  And  as  we  do  not  see 
any  binding  obligation  either  to  dip  or  to  sprinkle,  until  we  are 
better  informed,  which  is  the  right  w  ay,  and  until  professors  of 
Christianity  w  lio  deem  it  essential  are  agreed  about  the  manner 
of  ('Oing  it,  we  slnill  be  content  to  omit  tlie  ceremony  altogether. 

John  indeed  baptized  with  water  unto  repcntanre,  but  One  tliat 
is  mightier  than  John  baptizeth  witli  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire. 

Again,  we  would  like  to  know^  what  is  meant  by  that  article 
in  your  confession  of  faith,  which  says,  *'  to  the  officers  of  the 
church  tlie  keys  of  Heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue  where- 
of, they  have  power  respectively ^  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  t6  shut 
tjiat  kingdom  against  the  impenitent,  by  word  and  censures; 
and  to  open  it  unte  penitent  sinners,  &c.  as  occasion  may  rcc 


^luii'e.''  Now  to  which  of  your  ofliccrs  is  this  tremeiirous  pow- 
er intrusted  ?  if  to  FauW  we  must  he  in  a  dcplorahle  sit- 
uation indeed.  For  he  has  fairly  ranked  us  with  deists  and 
infidels,  and  aliens  from  the  visihle  church  of  Christ.  Hence  I 
conclude,  if  he^  or  such  Orthodox  Divines,  are  to  hold  the  keys 
of  heaven,  we  shall  knock  in  vain  for  admission. 

How  can  you  presume  to  call  the  Pope  of  Rome,  Tliat  anti- 
christ, that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  exalteth  him- 
self in  the  Church  against  Christ  and  all  that  is  called  God,'* 
when  you  assume  as  your  authority  to  open  and  shut  up  Heaven, 
the  same  text  of  Matthew,  which  the  Pope  claims  as  the  evidence 
ef  his  power  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  and  which  constitutes  him 
Christ's  Vicar  and  vicegerent  upon  earth  ? — And  was  not  the 
assumed  right  in  the  Pope  to  exercise  this  self  same  power,  which 
you  give  to  your  officers,  the  principal  cause  of  the  separation 
of  Luther  from  the  Romish  Churcli  ? 

I  will  now  as  Paul  has  done,  take  the  name  of  an  Apostle^ 
one  whose  evangelical  purity,  was  not  exceeded  hy  any  of  the 
followei^  of  Christ. 

JOHN. 

Saturdajt  yunc  30,  iSar. 

LETTER  VH. 

03JECTI0XS  ANSWERED. 

A  NEW  defender  has  appeared.  Whether  to  answer  him,  or 
not,  I  am  really  at  a  loss.  Not  from  terror  at  his  arguments, 
for  with  truth  upon  my  side,  I  do  not  fear  ten  thousand  such  ;  but 
because  I  am  doubtful  whether  you  will  not  disown  his  senti- 
ments and  decline  his  aid.  That  the  \STiter  is  a  deist  is  most 
palpable.  The  substance,  and  almost  the  words  of  his  objec- 
tions, may  be  found  in  every  ^^Titer  of  a  cei-tain  class,  from  lord 
Herbeii;  down  to  Thomas  Paine.  Yet,  as  I  sincerely  believe 
his  sentiments,  however  displeasing  to  a  few,  are  the  sentiments 
of  many  who  are  full  members  in  your  society ;  as  I  believe 
many  of  your  doctrines  lead  directly  to  such  sentiments ;  and 
as  the  style  and  expression  give  some  reason  to  believe  him  a 
professed  Friend,  until  he  be  disowned,  in  answering  him,  I 
shall  consider  myself  as  answering  ijau. 

In  reply  to  his  objection  against  a  certain  Confession  of 
Faith,  1  would  observe,  that  with  any  other  Confession  of  Faith 
than  yours,  I  have  nothing  to  do.  And  though  he  should  every 
week,  by  omitting  words  and  clauses,  metamorphose  an  inno- 
cent scriptural  doctrine  ihto  a  Popish  monster,  I  shall  not  ihm 


38 

be  diverted  from  my  determination  to  examine  your  leading 
doctrines  by  the  light  of  truth,  and,  if  possible,  expose  to  you 
and  to  the  woi'ld,  the  danger  of  your  system.  And  I  hope  that 
in  this,  I  have  no  other  view  but  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good 
©f  mankind. 

Let  us  now  canvass  the  sentiments  of  your  new  defender. 

First,  He  denies  (as  usual)  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word 
of  God.  We  are  told  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  then  how, 
&c."  This  from  any  but  a  Fnend  w  ould  be  barefaced  deism  j 
and  why  from  your  lips  should  it  be  justified  ?  If  you  mean 
merely  to  say  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  Spirit,  or  Christ,  we  ad- 
mit it  as  readily  as  that  it  is  not  Peter  or  Paul.  We  do  not 
look  upon  the  Bible  as  a  person,  or  a  spirit,  but  a  book  !  and  if 
this  is  all  you  mean  to  say,  you  are  welcome  to  the  wonderful 
discovery  !  But  if  you  mean  to  say,  tliat  the  Bible  is  not  a  plain 
literal  declaration  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God,  entitled  to  as 
much  reverence  and  as  implicit  credit  as  though  the  whole  had 
been  or  w^ere  now  delivered  by  an  audible  voice  from  the  Mmigh- 
ty  himself;  I  appeal  to  the  whole  christian  world,  if  you  are  not 
deists.  If  you  admit  that  it  is  his  declaration  of  truth,  his  speech, 
his  epistle,  his  message  to  us, — to  refuse  to  call  it  his  word, 
what  is  it  but  a  quibble !  A  good  part  of  the  Books  of  Moses  was 
spoken  by  the  Lord  from  Mount  Sinai  and  other  places;  the 
greater  part  of  the  gospels  consists  of  our  Lord's  discourses  ;  and 
the  inspired  Apostle  says,  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37.)  *'the  things 
which  I  WTite  unto  you  are  tiie  commandments  of  the  Lord 
and  yet  it  is  incorrect  to  call  these  very  scriptures  the  word  of 
God!  Because  this  phrase  is  once  or  twice  used  fguratively  to 
signify  Christ,  therefore  it  can  never  be  used  in  a  literal  sense 
The  names  Son  of  man,"  *^  Prophet,"  Priest,"  King,"  are 
all  applied  to  Christ,  but  do  they  therefore  always  signify  the 
Saviour?  I  am  confident,  my  dear  friends  whether  you  intend  it 
or  not,  there  is  much  deism  conveyed  to  your  hearers  under  this 
doctrine.  By  the  rejection  of  an  innocent,  an  expressive,  and  a 
scriptural  term,  you  do  lessen  the  reverence  of  your  children 
and  others  for  the  Book  of  God.  And  if  you  wished  to  propa- 
gate deistical  principles,  you  could  not  take  a  more  effectual 
wav.  Open  deism,  like  a  naked  Satan,  frightens  people;  but 
veiled  in  a  specious  garb,  like  Satan  robed  as  an  angel  of  light, 
it  seduces  thousands. 

Secondly.  He  denies  that  the  Bible  is  ^*  the  only  standard  of 
religious  truth.^^  Why?  because  different  christian  sects  pro- 
fessing to  follow^  it,  derive  from  it,  and  defend  by  it,  various 
contradictory  doctrines."  Now  I  a])peal  to  any  one  acquainted 
with  infidel  works,  if  this  is  not  one  of  the  first  objections  which 
a  deist  brings  to  invalidate  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures. 


S9 


*^The  scripturei?  are  obscure  and  incomprehensible,"  "no  two 
sects  agree  as  to  their  doctrines,"  we,  need  a  new  revelation  to 
tell  us  what  the  old  one  means,"  are  favourite  expressions.  Ob- 
jections of  this  kind,  however,  arise  from  a  shameful  ignorance 
of  the  scriptures,  and  of  the  doctrines  of  different  sects.  Let  in- 
fidels say  what  they  will,  nine-tenths  of  the  churches  in  Christen- 
dom, hold  doctrines  essentially  the  same.  By  consulting  the 
Confessions  of  Faith  of  the  Methodists,  Baptists^  Presbyterians, 
Episcopalians,  and  other  leading  denominations,  you  will  find, 
in  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  tbe  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  ple- 
nary Inspiration  of  the  sciuptures,  the  vicarious  Atonement,^ 
man's  Inability  to  save  himself.  Justification  only  through  the 
merits  of  Christ,  the  observance  of  the  ordinances  of  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  necessity  of  repentance,  faith  and 
holiness ;  in  short,  in  every  important  doctrine  peculiar  to  Chris- 
tianity, they  all  essentially  agree.  No  sect  which  rejects  any 
one  of  these  doctrines  is  generally  acknow  ledged  as  a  christian 
church.  No  sect  which  rejects^ o?ie  of  them  (unless  we  except 
the  necessity  of  repentance,"  which  is  not  peculiar  to  Chris- 
tianity) but  rejects  the  whole.  And  no  sect  rejects  one  of  these, 
but  avowedly  rejects  the  scriptures  as  a  standard.  The  Soci- 
nians  follow,  what  they  call.  Reason;  Swedenborgians,  the 
dreams  of  their  leader ;  the  Jews  and  Papists,  spurious  tradi- 
tions ;  the  Shakers,  Ann  Lee ;  and  the  Friends,  who  are  un- 
sound on  all  the  above  points,  (except  the  last,  and  here  they 
fail  in  part)  professedly  make  the  scriptures  subordinate"  to 
something  else.  And  I  cannot  but  belie vp,  the  reason  why 
those  w^ho  reject  the  above  doctrines  also  reject  the  scripture  as 
a  standard,  is,  that  these  doctrines  are  written  in  tliat  holy 
book  as  witJi  a  sunbeam,  so  that  **  he  who  runs  may  read."  But 
all  who  profess  to  make  the  scriptures  their  sole  standard,  harmo- 
nize on  all  these  points.  The  objection  of  *  John,'  therefore,  has 
no  foundation  :  on  minor  points,  it  is  to  be  lamented,  christians 
too  widely  and  too  warmly  differ.  But  predestination,  election, 
perseverance,  modes  of  Baptism,  forms  of  government,  forms  of 
worship,  however  important,  are  not,  in  my  opinion,  essential 
doctrines.  Only  agree  with  us  in  tliose  doctrines  and  ordinan- 
ces in  which  all  christians  agree,  and  you  shall  never  be  troubled 
by  me  about  minor  differences,  but  be  regarded  and  loved  as 
christian  brethren. 

Thirdly.  Another  infidel  doctrine  is  this,  that,  '^Conscience  is 
the  creature  of  habit,  formed  by  education.'*  Tliis  is  almost  Athe- 
ism !  Only  add  **  all  difference  between  right  and  wrong  is  fac- 
titious, the  effect  of  education,"  and  you  ar  on  a  par  with 
Hobbes  and  Hume.  Sober  deists  acknowledge  conscience  to  be 
universj^l  and  independent  of  circumstances.    I  have  much  to  say 


<4a 

upon  this  subject,  but  at  present,  for  want  of  room,  can  add  no 
more. 

Fmrthly.  Anotlier  proof  of  your  friend's  infidelity  is,  the 
mode  in  which  he  sets  aside  Baptism  and  the  hordes  Supper.  I 
have  no  doubt  many  of  your  society  conscientimisly  neglect  tbe.se 
ordinances  from  a  sincere  belief  that  they  are  not  commanded. 
But  this  writer  does  not  deny  they  are  commanded,  but  rejects 
them  simply  because  christians  differ  about  the  mode  and  cir- 
cumstances. An  humble  christian  would  have  first  examined 
wiiether  they  were  enjoined  of  God  ;  next,  w  hether  any  particulai* 
mode  w  as  fixed ;  and  lastly,  whether  this  mode  was  made  essen- 
tial.** If  any  particular  mode  be  essential,  (as  some  christians 
think,)  I  will  answer  for  it,  you  will  find  it  ;;/ai?ii?/  taught  in 
Scripture.  If  you  find  different  modes  were  practised,  and  no 
particular  one  enjoined,  you  are  allowed  the  liberty  of  choice. 
But  that  wafer  should  be  applied  in  some  way  to  the  body,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  almost  all  Chris- 
tendom holds  to  bean  express  command.  But,  no;  Chris- 
tians differ  about  the  mode,  and  therefore  I  will  reject  the  thing 
itself;  I  will  make  God  pay  for  the  folly  of  his  creatures!'* 
This  is  making  short  work!  At  this  rate  you  would  reject  every 
thing.  Christians  differ  as  much  about  prayer^  as  about  bap- 
tism ;  w  hether  it  should  be  with  a  form,  or  extempore ;  wheth- 
er in  a  kneeling,  standing  or  sitting  posture;  whether  vocal  or 
mental,  &c.  and  yet  does  this  w  riter  never  pray  /  Why  not  wait 
until  an  imessential  form  is  settled?  People  differ  about  religimi 
itself.  There  are  at  least  3000  different  sects  in  the  woi'ld, 
worshipping  the  Deity  under  different  modes  and  circumstan- 
ces; will  this  writer  never  serve  God  until  all  the  professors 
are  agreed 

PAUL. 

SeZ'cnth-dajfy  jth  Mo.  7,  i82i» 

LETTER  II. 

TO  ^^^PAUL,"  AND  HIS  FELLOW  PROFESSORS. 

Knowledge  and  Wisdom,  far  from  being"  one, 
Have  oft  times  no  coimexion.    Knowledge  dwells 
In  heads,  replete  with  thoughts  of  other  men; 
Wisdom,  in  minds  attentive  to  their  own, 

COWPER. 

Lv  my  last,  I  did  not  present  myself  as  the  "  defender'**  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,  and  their  doctrine.  They  do  not  need  any 
defence  from  me.  The  foundation  of  our  faith  stands  sure,  and 
can  never  be  shaken.    It  is  that  rock,  upon  which  our  Saviour 


41 


aadd  he  would  build  his  church,  agaiust  which,  *^  the  gates  of  hell 
can  never  prevaiU^  And  that  rock  is  the  revelation  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Father  through  the  Son,  in  the  souls  of  the 
children  of  men,  (Matt.  xvi.  18  :)  However  deficient  many  of 
us  may  be  in  practice,  our  principles  are  in  no  danger  from 
••Paul."  We  have  a  witness  in  the  hearts  of  thousands  of 
pious  christians,  who  do  not  belong  to  our  Society,  that  the 
leading  doctrines  of  our  christian  profession  are  true.  And  the 
efforts  of  '*Paul*'  cannot  arrest  the  progress  of  this  light  in 
the  earth.  His  declamation,  and  denunciations,  contain  nothing 
which  bear  the  smallest  resemblance  to  argument.  In  my  last, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  I  affirmed  nothing  but  what  he  ad- 
mits ;  and  the  questions  put  to  him  are  not  answered  in  any  oth- 
er why,  than  by  the  cry  of  Deism,"  Infidelity,"  "  Atheism," 
&c.  This  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of  his  essay ;  the  sum  and 
substance  of  all  he  has  said,  or  pretended  to  say  in  his  professed 
reply  to  my  questions.  This  method  of  liandling  an  argument, 
is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  and  manner  of  his 
former  essays. 

Thus  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  of  old  called  our  Saviour  a 
blasphemer,  and  a  deceiver  ;  and  when  they  found  that  his  pre- 
cepts and  example,  struck  at  the  root  of  their  pride  and  self- 
righteousness,  and  tended  to  lessen  their  unhallowed  influence 
over  the  people,  they  set  to  woi^k  to  prevent  the  world  from 
going  after  him."  *'He  hath  a  devil  and  is  mad,  why  hear  ye 
liim" — again,  he  is  a  Samaritan  and  hath  a  devil."  Indeed  I 
have  been  forcibly  struck  from  the  beginning,  with  the  resem- 
blance w  hich  this  writer  bears,  in  some  particulars,  to  the  Apos- 
tle Paul,  before  his  conversion.  Brought  up  at  the  feet  of  Ga- 
maliel, a  doctor  of  the  Jewish  law; — his  manner  of  life  was  in 
conformity  to  the  strictest  forms  of  the  Jewish  religion  :  "  he 
verily  thought  he  ouglit  to  do  many  tilings  contrary  to  the  name 
(which  implies  power)  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.*' — And  he  doubt- 
less believed,  that  wiien  attempting  to  extirpate  the  heresy  of 
Christianity,  he  was  advancing  **  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
good  of  mankind."  But  the  delusion  vanished  when  he  was 
met  by  the  way,  and  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  shone  around 
him  :  he  then  saw  that  in  a  state  of  darkness  and  unbelief,  he 
had  possessed  a  zeal  for  God  which  was  "  not  according  to 
knowledge." 

One  of  the  exceptions  alluded  to  above,  is  where,  in  my  lastj 
I  call  conscience  the  •'  creature  of  habit,  the  effect  of  education; 
which  Paul,"  in  his  usual  manner  pronounces  to  be  "  almost 
Atheism."  Then  if  it  be  almost  Atheism,  to  call  conscience  the 
creature  of  habit,  it  must  be  almost  a  deity.  How  does  this  ac- 
cord witli  what  he  has  said  of  conscience  in  his  Sd  Letter? 
6 


45 


Page  9th.  Scmi-ileity  as  he  now  makes  it,  he  there  calls 
it  deceitful,  defiled,  deceptive,"  kc.  Such  incongruities  men 
fall  into  when  groping  in  the  dark.  I  need  not  add  much  on 
this  subject  now,  as  every  reflecting  man  must  be  sensible  on  a 
little  examination,  tliat  what  I  have  said  of  conscience  is  true. 
If  an  infidel  has  said  the  same  thing  before,  that  does  not  alter 
the  truth  of  the  proposition.  By  admitting  what  we  cannot 
deny,  and  what  common  observation  will  convince  us  is  time, 
we  disarm  the  Infidel  of  one  of  his  most  powerful  weapons. 
^'Paui."  has  more  to  say  on  this  subject;  probably  as  much  to 
the  purpose  as  what  he  has  said. 

I  will  now  take  my  lea\  e  of  Paul"  for  the  present,  with 
observing,  tliat  we  do  not  wish  to  turn  him  aside  from  his  de- 
termination to  examine  our  leading  doctrines  by  the  liglit  of* 
truth,  and  expose  to  us,  and  to  the  world  the  danger  of  our  sys- 
tem." But  let  him  tak'  heed  that  this  examination  he  by  the 
light  of  truth,"  otherwise,  he  may  ''stumble  and  fall,  and  his 
place  may  not  be  found." 

I  regret  that  the  Editor^  should  have  misconstrued  my  mean- 
ing, in  the  questions  I  asked.  He  will  observe  I  did  not  express 
any  decided  opinion  of  the  scriptures,  in  my  last.  But  as  1  be- 
lieve there  are  many  pious  christians  among  you,  whose  views 
of  the  scriptures  seem  to  differ  from  mine,  and  whose  integrity 
and  uprightness  of  heart,  command  my  esteem  and  love  ;  on  ac- 
count of  such  as  these,  and  to  show  that  we  consider  tlie  Bible 
the  best  of  books,  I  will  as  briefly  as  possible  give  some  of  our 
views  of  those  writings. 

We  value  the  scriptures,  as  containing  the  testimony  of  in- 
spired men,  which  testimony  is  true,  and  is  profitable  for  *'re- 
])roof,  for  doctrine,  for  instruction :"  The  account  there  given 
of  the  creation  of  the  world,  aiid  the  fall  of  man;  the  prophecies, 
types  and  shadows,  of  the  old  dispensation,  all  foretelling,  pre- 
figuring and  centering  in  Christ  the  Redeemer ; — his  birth,  life, 
example  and  preccjyts.  death,  resurrection,  ascension  and  me- 
diation ;  all  these  are  recorded  there  in  a  style  of  simplicity,  and 
grandeur,  so  happily  blended  and  combined,  that  it  has  never 
been  equaled.  And  these  records  are  of  more  value  to  mankind 
than  all  the  books  that  ever  were  written.  But  we  dare  not 
place  the  written  testimony  of  inspired  men  in  the  Judgment 
seat  which  Christ  alone  should  fill. 

For  we  believe,  that  we  have  need  of  the  same  light,  the  same 
spirit  of  truth,  which  was  to  guide  into  all  truth,  and  to  abide 
witli  the  disciples,  or  true  believers,  for  ever,  to  shine  upon  our 
understandings,  to  qualify  us  rightly  to  understand  the  scriptures 
and  to  see  the  beauty,  and  harmony,  and  spirituality  of  their 
testimonies  :  and  we  also  believe  that  this  same  si)irit  which  was 

#  Alluding  to  some  editorial  remarks  in  tlieC.  Repository', 


43 


t<>bfi  poui'ed  out  upon  all  flesh  under  tlie  gospel,  is  still  contim- 
ued,  and  that  by  it  sons  and  daughters  now  prophecy. 

You  call  the  Bible  "  the  word  of  God."  We  use  that  term  as 
it  is  used  in  Scripture,  to  apply  to  Christ,  an  eternal,  uncreated 
spiritual  essence.  And  because  we  do  not  call  it  the  word, 
many  honest  men  think  it  is  lightly  esteemed  by  us. 

Take  the  first  verses  of  John's  Gospel,  and  substitute  Bible  for 
WORD,  and  how  will  it  read  ?  The  following  texts  will  show  that 
the  7cord  of  God  is  used  in  the  same  sense  by  the  other  Apostles. 

Take  the  sword  of  the  spirit  which  is  the  word  of  God."'  (Eph. 
\i.  17.)  **By  the  word  of  God,  the  heavens  were  of  old,"  (2 
Peter  iii.  5.)  "The  worlds  were  made  by  the  word  of  God,'" 
(Heb.  xi.  3.)  "John  bare  record  of  the  word  of  God,  and  the 
testimony  of  Jesus,"  (Rev.  i.  2.)  which  testimony,  he  says,  "is 
the  Spirit  of  Prophecy."  (Rev.  xix.  10.)  and  in  this  last  chap- 
ter he  tells  us  that  he  who  is  called  the  Word  of  God,  is  "  Lord 
OF  LORDS,  AXD  KiXG  OF  KixGs."  Brevity  forbids  that  I  should 
multiply  quotations — what  I  have  adduced  are  sufficient  for  my 
purpose. 

That  the  Bible  is  not  here  meant  is  evident.  Procter  qmd 
unumqiiodqne  est  tale,  illud  ipsum  est  magis  tale,  or  that  which 
causes,  is  greater  than  tlie  thing  caused. 

That  the  text  quoted  by  the  editor  from  Peter,  does  not  refer 
to  any  written  testimony  of  Christ  known  to  the  Jews,  I  think 
is  evident  from  the  context.  Peter  had  been  speaking  of  the 
vision  they  had  seen  on  the  Mount  where  our  Saviour  was  trans- 
figured before  them,  and  they  had  heard  a  ^oice  from  Heaven, 
saying  *•  tliis  is  my  beloved  Son,"  6cc.  what  stronger  outward 
testimony  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  could  possibly  have  been 
given  to  Peter  than  this  ?  It  \a  as  in  no  respect  inferior  in  point 
of  evidence  to  the  promulgation  of  the  law  from  Mount  Sinai. — 
Yet  in  contradistinction  from  this,  he  says,  "  but  we  have  a  more 
sure  word  of  pro]>hecy,"  6cc.  meaning  the  internal  evidence — 
that  kind  of  evidence,  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  say  on  another 
occasion,  "thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,"  and 
which  "flesh  and  blood  had  not  rcA ealed  to  him."  For  none 
other  than  this  kind  of  evidence  could  be  "  more  sure"'  than  that 
with  which  it  is  compared.  Again,  the  concluding  part  of 
Jolnfs  Revelation  cannot  be  intended  to  mean  any  thing  more 
than  a  command,  not  to  add  to,  or  take  from  the  Book  of  Reve- 
lations, which  he  was  then  about  to  finish ;  for  he  expressly  says 
"tlie  prophecy  of  this  book,"  else  this  same  John  would  have 
sub  jected  himself  to  the  denunciation  there  mentioned ;  for  it  is 
admitted  that  he  wrote  his  Gospel  and  Epistles  after  he  wrote 
the  book  of  Revelations. 

I  will  now  quote  a  paragraph  from  the  book  of  discipline  of 


« 


44 


the  Society  of  Friends,  printed  in  1806,  page  23,  to  show  their 
views  in  relation  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

**  If  any  in  memhership  shall  blaspheme,  or  speak  profanely 
of  Almighty  God,  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  or  she 
ought  early  to  be  tenderly  treated  with  for  their  instruction, 
an(i  the  convincement  of  their  understanding,  that  they  may  ex- 
perience repentance  and  forgiveness  ;  but  should  any,  notwith- 
standing this  brotherly  labour,  persist  in  their  error,  or  deny  the 
Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  immediate 
revelation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  authenticity  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  as  it  is  manifest  they  are  not  one  in  the  faith  with  us, 
the  monthly  meeting  where  the  party  belongs,  having  extended 
due  care  for  the  help  and  benefit  of  the  individual  without  effect, 
ought  to  declare  the  same,  and  issue  their  testimony  (that  is  dis- 
own them)  accordingly." 

What  becomes  of  our  '  Deism,  Infidelity,'  &c. 

JOHN. 

NOTES, 

Inserted  in  the  Repository  July  Tth,  and  Hth,  1821. 

(Xj^"'  John"  authorises  us  to  say  that  it  was  not  his  intention  now  to  enter 
fully  into  the  discussion  g'oing'  on  in  the  Repository— but  from  the  manner  in 
which  his  last  was  understood,  he  is  desirous  of  giving  his  views  a  little  more 
at  large — he  is  however  disposed  to  give  pl^ce  to  Amicus,  after  the  publication 
of  the  number  inserted  to  day ;  reserving  to  himself  the  privdege  of  taking 
up  the  argument  at  any  future  period,  if  circumstances  should  render  it  ne- 
cessary or  proper. 


O:;^'"  Amicus"  asks  the  favour  of  his  friend  "Paul,"  to  let  him  occupy  a 
few  numbers  of  the  Repository,  until  he  shall  have  advanced  as  far  ir  the  dis- 
cussion as  his  opponent,  when  they  can  sta.  t  on  even  ground,  which  he  thinks 
will  make  their  communications  much  more  mterestmg  to  their  readers,  and 
tend  to  bring  the  discussion  to  a  speedier  close. 

We  thmk  the  request  of  "Amicus"  so  reasonable  that  "  Paul"  cannot  ob- 
ject to  it,  and  therefore  shall  expect  a  number  from  him  next  week.  xd. 


(I^Paul  agrees  with  Amicus  that  their  "communications  would  be  much 
more  interesting  to  their  readers,  and  their  discussion  brought  to  a  speedier 
close,"  were  they  to  start  on  "even  ground,"  and  continue  at  the  same  point 
in  tlie  discussion  ;  and  therefore  is  willing  to  grant  the  "  reasonable"  request 


45 


*f  Amicus  to  any  reasonahle  extent.  If  Amicus  will  come  directly  to  the 
point,  and  meet  Paul  fairly  on  the  leading  sul>jects  he  has  broached,  it  shall 
not  be  his  fault  if  Amicus  be  not  heard  till  ''e  is  satisfied.  But  sho  ild  he  take 
the  same  circuitous  rout,  dwell  as  long  on  litlle  thmgs,  and  introduce  as  much 
irrelevant  matter,  (however  important)  in  answering  each  particular  letter,  as 
he  has  in  commenting  on  the  Introtluction,  after  hearing  him  a  reasonable 
time,  Paul  will  be  compelled  to  interfere  and  claim  his  right. 

On  the  whole,  Paul  is  willing  to  make  no  account  of  John,  but  suffer  Ami- 
cus to  occupy  as  many  numbers  as  himself ;  after  which  he  hopes  his  friend, 
for  his  own  credit,  will  not  make  his  own  dij'tiseness  a  plea  for  any  farther  pri- 
vilege. 

From  John,  whether  he  be  a  Deist,  Friend  or  both,  Paul  takes  his  leave  with 
some  reluctance  ;  not  because  he  admires  his  candour,  but  because  he  has  one 
trait  seldom  found  among  Friends,  a  •iviili7i^ness  to  come  to  the  point-^nw  this 
account  Paul  regrets  he  should  be  under  any  restraint  and  hopes  to  hear  from 
him  again  when  circumstances  will  permit. 


Seventh-day^  1th  Mo.  4.1,  i8ir, 

LETTER  V. 

Whether  tliere  is  any  weight  in  the  sentiments  I  have  ad- 
Tanced  to  show  why  the  society  I  advocate,  should  pursue  their 
present  course,  I  leave  the  candid  reader  to  determine.    I  Iiavc 
given  my  particular  views  on  the  subject  of  Missionary  con- 
cerns, which  I  have  no  doubt  are  in  coincidence  with  those  taken 
by  a  large  number  of  my  fellow  professors.    There  is  however 
one  view  of  the  case  which  may  be  stated  as  the  great  point 
which  governs  the  Society  in  this  and  every  other  religious  en- 
gagement.   They  hold  tlie  doctrine  that  without  Divine  assist- 
ance, no  work  of  a  religious  nature  can  either  be  rightly  un- 
dertaken or  properly  conducted.  That  we  have  no  right  to  enter 
on  any  religious  concern  however  plausibly  presented  without 
the  call  and  qualification  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  service. 
With  respect  to  foreign  Missions,  I  believe  it  may  be  safely  as- 
serted, that  hitherto  the  Society  as  a  Body  have  not  apprehend- 
ed it  a  religious  duty  to  engage  in  them  ;  and  that  until  they  are 
so  called  and  qualified,  it  would  be  contrary  to  their  own  prin- 
ciples, and  very  unsafe  for  them  to  meddle  with  them,  lest  in  so 
doing  they  should  incur  that  Divine  rebuke,  Isaiah  i.  12 :  "  who 
hath  required  this  at  your  hands  ?" 

Paul  in  his  4th  number,  objects  to  my  first  communication, 
that  like  the  Society  of  which  I  am  a  member,  I  make  too  much 
of  little  things.  But  if  these  little  things  arc  beneath  his  notice, 
why  did  he  make  them  a  cause  of  complaint  against  us  ? — I  have 
discussed  no  subject  to  which  he  had  not  first  given  sufficient 


4& 


importance  by  making  it  a  topic  of  censure.-— But  the  truth  is 
that  those  testimonies  which  he  calls  little,  are  only  so  in  the 
yievv  of  corrupt  human  nature — they  are  neither  little  in  their 
causes  nor  their  con  sequences^  the  j  have  Divine  wisdom  for  their 
author,  Apostolic  precept  and  example  for  their  confirmation, 
and  human  happiness  for  their  end.  Our  Lord,  who  knew  the 
im])ortance  of  faithfulness  in  little  things,  lias  left  us  this  truly 
divine  aphorism,  whicli  should  be  deeply  engraven  on  the  heart 
of  every  Christian — ^*  He  that  is  faithful  in  that  which  is  least, 
is  faithful  also  in  much  :  and  he  tliat  is  unjust  in  the  least  is  un-. 
just  also  in  much."    Lukexvi.  10. 

I  will  now  briefly  advert  to  some  of  those  little  things'^ 
which  **  Paul"  considers  as  matters  of  small  moment,  ^*  ques- 
tions fit  for  none  but  children" — And  first — of  the  ministry. 
Christ  declared  to  tlie  ministers  commissioned  by  himself  "Freely 
ye  have  received  ;"your  qualifications  for  the  ministry  have  not 
been  derived  from  colleges,  theological  schools  or  universities, 
but  from  the  foimtain  of  free  Grace,  and  I  command  you  "  free- 
ly give."  Now  we  have  demonstrative  evidence  that  the  Apos- 
tles did  not  mistake  the  nature  and  intention  of  their  Lord's 
command.  Their  precepts  and  practice  afterwards  bear  testi- 
mony beyond  the  power  of  sophistry  to  invalidate,  that  they  un- 
derstood him  to  institute  a  ministry  independent  of  any  pecuni- 
ary consideration.  And  yet  Paul"  considers  an  infraction  of 
our  Lord's  command,  a  disregard  to  the  precepts  and  example 
of  the  Apostles  a  childish  consideration. 

Secondly,  of  dress  and  address.  The  Apostle  commanded 
the  believers  in  his  day  not  to  be  "  conformed  to  this  world,'- 
and  that  their  adorning  should  not  be  the  outward,  but  the  in- 
ward, "  adorning  of  a  meek  and  quiet  spirit."  And  our  Sa- 
viour told  his  disciples  to  call  no  man  master,  for  one  was  their 
master  even  Christ,  and  **  all  ye,"  says  he,  "  are  brethren." 
"  How"  says  he,  can  ye  believe  who  receive  honor,  one  of 
another,  and  seek  not  the  honor,  that  cometh  from  God  only." 

Shall  it  then  be  deemed  a  matter  of  indifFei-ence  whether  a 
Christian  professing  to  be  redeemed  from  the  spii-it  of  the  world 
shall  stand  an  example  of  simplicity  and  non-conformity  to  its 
customs,  or  w  hether  he  shall  enter  with  the  giddy  multitude  in- 
to the  changeable  fantastic  fashions  of  the  times,  into  the  use  of 
false  and  flattering  and  often  disgusting  compliments  ?  Little 
indeed  must  he  be  acquainted  with  the  important  consequences 
of  a  life  of  true  self-denial,  who  would  pronounce M^^his  a  trifling 
consideration.  Tlie  shape  and  colour  of  a  garment  considered 
abstractedly  from  the  disposition  which  adopts  them,  and  from 
the  effects  they  may  have  on  others  are  indifferent.  Friends 
never  thought  otherwise.    But  whether  the  professors  of  the 


47 


Christian  religion,  the  Disciples  of  him  who  said  "Learn  of  mc, 
for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart,"  shall  in  the  true  spirit  of 
the  world  adopt  its  vain  fashions,  its  frivolous  customs,  its  cor- 
rupt language,  its  dissipating  amusements,  its  flattering  compli- 
mentary address — or  whether  they  shall  hold  up  a  steady  testi- 
mony, against  them  all,  we  do  indeed  consider  a  matter  of  great 
importance  !  and  in  this  sentiment  we  are  ahundantly  confirm- 
ed by  most  satisfactory  experience. 

Many  of  us  know  and  feel  the  happy  effects  of  an  emancipation 
from  the  slavery  of  fashion,  and  are  concerned  that  others  may 
en  joy  this  great  privilege.  We  sincerely  lament  to  see  so  many 
of  our  younger  members  so  blind  to  the  high  privileges  of  their 
education,  as  willingly  to  be  chained  to  the  car  of  Fashion,  to 
be  dragged  about  in  the  insipid  circle  of  worldly  pleasures, 
to  see  them  rejecting  the  liberty  purchased  by  the  blood  and 
suffering  of  their  predecessors,  for  those  effeminate  and  trifling 
gratifications  which  cannot  satisfy  an  immortal  spirit,  and 
which  are  so  inconsistent  with  the  purity  and  divine  excellence 
of  true  religion — to  see  them  adopting  a  course  which  instead  of 
confering  real  dignity  of  character,  draws  their  attention  to  ex- 
terior ornament — makes  them  triflers — bars  the  avenues  to  the 
improvement  of  the  understanding,  and  renders  them  objects  of 
pity  or  contempt  to  all  those  whose  opinions  are  worth  consult- 
ing. "  Paul"  may  call  these  little  things,"  may  stamp  the 
standard  we  have  raised  against  them  with  the  epithet  of  "  child- 
ish"— but  with  the  most  unequivocal  evidence  of  experience, 
with  the  clear,  plain  precepts  of  the  gospel  in  our  favour,  I  hope 
and  trust  the  Society  of  Friends  may  never  let  this  excellent 
testimony  fall  to  the  ground,  never  consider  that  a  little 
thing'*  which  draws  after  it  a  train  of  consequences  so  import- 
ant and  innnerous  that  a  volume  might  be  profitably  and  inter- 
estingly filled  in  pointing  them  out. 

I  will  now  turn  to  some  of  those  great  things  which  Paul" 
deems  of    high  moment  and  of  eternal  consequence." 

And  first  :  Of  sprinkling  a  little  water  in  the  face,  which  he 
terms  "  baptism  ;"  and  of  taking  bread  and  wine,  both  of  which 
he  dignifies  with  the  appellation  of  Seals  of  God's  covenant 
and  badges  of  Christianity." 

That  water  baptism  cr  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  as  it  is 
termed,  are  the  "  seals  of  God's  Covenant  or  the  badges  of 
Christianity,"  we  have  no  better  evidence  than  "  Paul's"  bare 
assertion.  That  they  should  ever  have  been  so  called,  1  deem 
the  work  of  the  busy  system  builder  unsupported  by  one  plain  text, 
and  directly  contrary  to  the  express  language  and  general  ten- 
or of  Scripture  doctrine,  as  I  shall  endeavor  to  show.  They  are 
both  mei'e  types  at  best.    By  some  they  are  termed  "  outward 


4a 


and  visible  signs  of  inward  and  spiritual  Grace."  Now  all  will 
aclvnowledge  that  inward  and  spiritual  Grace  may  be  and  is 
largely  known  in  the  absence  of  these  signs,  otherwise  thou- 
sands could  experience  the  blessings  of  Divine  Grace  but  once 
a  month,  and  millions  never  at  all.  That  these  signs  may  be 
used  in  a  state  of  gross  pollution  none  will  deny  :  that  there  is 
no  necessary  connexion  between  them  and  the  things  signified 
must  be  admitted.  How  then  can  they  be  seals  of  God's  cov- 
enant and  badges  of  Christianity  ?"  Such  the  Scriptures  never 
call  them — such  in  the  nature  of  things  they  cannot  be. 
They  may  sometimes  be  used  by  the  unregenerate  and  wicked  ! 
Of  what  then  are  they  seals  ?  Surely  not  of  God's  covenant, 
but  rather  of  hypocrisy.  Indeed  it  may  be  safely  asserted  that 
Divine  perfection  never  ordained  such  uncertain,  such  equivocal 
symbols  to  be  badges  or  seals  of  grace  to  the  Christian  ;  and  I 
cannot  conceive  how  any  who  delight  not  to  dwell  in  tlie  dark 
and  misty  region  of  shadows  should  be  willing  to  give  them 
such  high  sounding  appellations. 

I  w  ill  now  undertake  to  show  from  plain  scripture  testimony. 
First,  What  is  the  covenant  or  god  with  his  children  under 
tlie  gospel  dispensation, — and  secondly,  to  demonstrate  from  the 
same  authority  what  is  the  seal  of  that  covenant,  and 

First, — From  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  chap.  8th. — where 
the  Apostle  is  engaged  at  large  to  show  the  difference  between 
the  typical  dispensation  of  the  law,  and  the  spiritual  nature  of 
the  gospel,  and  where  for  this  purpose  he  quotes  the  Prophecy 
of  Jeremiah  whicli  describes  the  new  covenant  dispensation  in 
remarkably  clear  terms,  *'  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  and 
with  the  house  of  Judali,  not  according  to  the  covenant  tljat  I 
made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day  when  1 1  >ok  them  by  the  Iiand 
to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  because  they  continued 
not  in  my  covenant,  and  I  regarded  tliem  not  saith  the  Lord. — 
For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel 
after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord — /  tvill  put  mij  taws  into  their 
minds,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts ;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a 
God,  and  thetj  shall  be  to  me  a  people, — and  they  shall  not  teach 
every  man  his  neighbour  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying  know 
the  Lord;  for  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,'^ — 
See  also  Isaiah  lix.  20,  21,  quoted  by  the  Apostle  to  the  Ro- 
mans xi.  26,  27.    These  passages  exhibit  in  so  striking  a  man- 
ner the  nature  of  the  Gospel  Covenant,  an<l  the  unbounded  good- 
ness of  our  Creator  in  the  offer  of  such  a  compact  with /the  hu- 
man family,  that  I  cannot  suppose  that  any  further  testimony 
'•an  be  needed  to  establish  my  first  position. 

Secondly.    The  Apostle,  Eph.  cliap.  i.  13.  probably  allud- 


49 


ing  to  the  passage  I  have  quoted  tells  the  faithful  in  Christ  at 
Ephesus,  that  after  they  believed  in  Christ,  they  were  sealed 
with  tJie  HOLY  SPIRIT  of  promise,  which"  says  he,  *»  is  the 
earnest  of  our  inheritance  until  the  redemption  of  the  purcliased 
possession  unto  the  praise  of  his  glory."  And  in  the  same  Epis- 
tle, chap.  iv.  30.  he  exhorts  them  not  to  grieve  the  holy  spirit 
of  God  wherebif  says  he  ye  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  re- 
demption." By  all  which  it  is  undeniably  evident  that  no  out- 
ward carnal  rite  is  the  seal  of  God's  covenant^  but  this  divine 
confirmation  of  the  christian  is  the  work  of  tlie  holy  spirit  in 
the  soul. 

I  think  I  am  aware  of  the  force  of  habit,  the  strength  of  first 
impressions,  and  can  make  much  allowance  for  tlje  practices  of 
those  who  differ  from  us  in  their  forms  of  worship  and  the  use 
of  shadowy  ceremonies — but  I  have  sometimes  wondered  how 
any  experimental  christian  who  had  knovvn  the  Love  of  God 
shed  abroad  in  his  heart,"  and  understood  the  nature  of  divine 
communion  with  the  soul,  could  afterwards  turn  to  the  "  weak 
ami  beggarly  elements  and  thereunto  desire  again  to  be  in  bon- 
dage,"— could  descend  from  the  high,  the  tranquil,  the  soul-sat- 
isfy kig 'enjoyment  of  a  spiritual  supper,-'  to  busy  himself  in  u 
a  round  of  typical  ceremonies,  7veak  indeed  as  pertaining  to  the 
conscience,  beggar-like  in  that  they  have  nothing  to  give  us, 
and  which  can  never  make  him  that  doeth  the  service  perfect." 
See  Gal.  iv,  9.  and  also  Heb.  ix.  9,  and  10,  and  Rev.  iii.  20. 

But  it  is  said  we  are  commanded  by  divine  autliority  to  ob- 
serve these  ceremonies.  In  my  next  number  I  shall  give  some 
of  my  views  on  that  subject  and  endeavor  to  show  the  weakness 
of  sueh  a  position. 

AMICUS. 


Se-jonlh'day,  :lh  Mo.  zi,  i8i\. 

LETTER  YI. 

Havixg  shewn  in  my  last  Essay,  that  water  baptism  and  the 
ceremony  of  taking  bread  and  wine—- the  Sealing  Ordinan- 
ces," as  Paul"  is  pleased  to  term  them,  neither  arc,  nor  can. 
in  the  nature  of  things  be  any  seal  of  the  Divine  covenant  or 
CADGE  of  Christianity,  that  they  never  had  any  such  use  assign- 
ed them  under  the  gospel,  and  are  never  so  termed  in  the  Nfew 
Testament. — I  shall  now  proceed  to  state  my  views  of  these  cer- 
emonies :  and  first,  of  Water  Baptism, 

In  treating  of  this  subject,  I  shall  not  inrpiire  about  the 
mode  of  Baptism."    It  is  not  my  business  to  shew  the  inconsis- 


50 


tcncy  of  those  w  ho  plead  Saipture  precept  ibr  this  **cartiai  or- 
dinance," and  hlame  iis  for  tlie  non-ohservancc  of  it,  yet  never 
practice  it  themselves ;  who  tell  us  they  have  the  **  express  com- 
mand of  Christ"  for  its  institution,  and  yet  follow  a  liomish  tra- 
(lition  in  its  stead — who  remind  us  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch 
both  going  down  into  the  water,  yet  content  themselves  with 
sprinlding  a  little  in  the  face :  their  conduct  in  this  case,  how 
strange  soever  it  may  he,  is  no  concern  of  mine,  who  deny  Wa- 
ter Baptism,  by  any  mode  whatever,  to  be  an  ordinance  of  Christ. 

As  I  do  not  understand  that  any  Society  of  Christians  believe 
this  rite  to  be  essential  to  salvation,  I  know  of  but  two  argu- 
ments that  can  be  used  for  its  support.  If  these  fail  it  must  fall 
to  the  ground,  and  be  swept  away  with  the  other  weak  and 
sliadowy  institutions  of  a  former  dispensation,  Tlic  first  is 
some  **  express  command  of  Jesus  Christ,'^  The  second  thai 
the  Jpostles  actually  apjAied  water  to  their  cmiverts,''  or  in  more 
unexceptionable  terms,    actually  baptized  them  in  water 

First  Argument,  **  The  express  command  of  Jesus  Christ." 
This  is  indeed  essential  to  give  it  the  character  of  a  chiistian  or- 
<Uir.ince,"  for  we  cannot  suppose  a  christian  institution  unautho- 
I'i'zed  by  any  law  of  Christ.  Now  we  affirm  that  there  is  no  such 
law.  Paul"  asserts  the  contrary,  and  cites  the  following 
text  to  support  his  assertion.  Matt,  xxviii.  (See  his  Essay,  Let- 
ter 4th,)  yet  he  afterwards  in  the  last  paragraph  of  the  same 
Essay,  finding  that  ^'rcater^'  is  not  mentioned  in  the  passage 
tacitly  admits  there  is  no  such  **  express  command,"  but  asserts 

that  the  commission  of  our  Lord  if  not  express  was  calculated 
to  lead  to  Water  Baptism.  Hei'c  he  stumbles  at  tlie  threshold! 
And  here  I  might  safely  rest  this  point,  did  he  not  by  begging 
the  question  in  several  important  particulars  on  the  one  hand, 
and  making  some  unl'ounded  assertions  on  the  other,  attempt  te 
foi-tify  his  position  against  the  weight  of  any  ai'gument  that 
might  be  brought  to  beai'  upon  it.  In  the  first  place,  he  assumes 
the  point  at  issue,  by  saying  tliat  **  our  Lcrd  knew  the  Apostles 
understood  him  to  mean  Water  Baptism."  In  the  next  place  he 
affirms  that  Spiritual  Baptism  was  not  signified  by  our  Lord 
in  tlie  text,  because,  it  was  a  human  act"  which  is  there  com- 
manded. Here  his  premises  and  his  conclusion  arc  both  untrue, 
and  we  deny  them  both.  Then  he  gravely  tells  us  that  these 
gratuitous  assertions,  and  tw  o  or  three  texts  by  him  quoted,  in 
none  of  which  the  word  Water  is  once  mentioned,  ought  to  end 
tlie  controversy  between  us.  Now  I  am  persuaded  that  '*Paui,," 
(to  use  his  own  phrase,)  has  imbibed  erroneous  views  of  the 
Society  of  Friends,"  if  he  thinks  they  can  yield  to  such  weak 
argument  as  this.  And  tliough  lie  supposes  **some  other  than 
th«  Holy  S]iii'it,  some  light  beside' the  the  light  of  Scripture, 


51 


must  be  called  in  to  interpret  these  texts  as  not  enjoiiilng  Wiitoi 
Baptism.*'  yet  I  hope  to  be  a!  le  to  show  by  clear  evideiire,  that 
the  New  Testament  contains  suflicient  matter  toi;  the  purpose  1 
have  in  view. 

Passing  over  his  assertion,  that  we  say  by  baptizing,  r.oth- 
ing  more  than  teaching  is  meant/'  which  neitlier  the  Society  of 
Friends,  nor  any  of  their  '*  admired  writers"  have  ever  said  ;  I 
will  now  state  our  views  of  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  give  such  an 
explanation  of  the  text  quoted  by  Paul,"  Matt,  xxvii.  19.  20, 
as  I  think  was  intended  by  our  Lord,  and  will  correspond  with 
tlie  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel  dispensation. 

It  is  evident  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament  that 
tiro  kinds  of  Ba])tism  arc  distinctly  understood.  Jolin  the  Bap- 
tist's expressions  arc  decisive  on  tliis  pokit.  Matt.  iii.  11. 
Mark  i.  8  :  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  witli  water,  but  he 
(Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Gliost."  As  it  must 
be  admitted  tliat  tliere  are  iivo  kinds  of  Bai)tism,  so  it  is  evident 
that  they  are  different  in  their  nature.  One  carnal  and  element- 
ary, the  other  spiritual  and  divine.  That  tlie  one  was  tempora- 
ry Sind  evanescent,  the  other  a  peryetual  ordinance  in  the  church, 
is  I  think  cleai'ly  evident  from  John  the  Baptist's  own  assertion, 
John  iii.  28,  30  :  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  witness  that  I  said 
I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent  before  him.  He  must  in- 
crease, but  I  must  decrease."  Now  it  is  so  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  when  our  Lord  sent  fortli  his  disciples  to  preach  and 
to  baptize  that  he  meant  they  should  use  his  own  baptism,  and 
not  the  baptism  of  another,  that  one  would  think  there  could  be 
no  doubt  on  tlie  subject,  especially  when  we  consider  the  nature 
of  each  :  John's  being  elementary,  typical,  inefficient  to  cleanse 
iVom  sin.  Christ's  evangelical,  divine,  powerful  in  purifying 
the  soul,  and  exactly  in  acconjance  with  the  great  design  of  his 
coming  as  stated  by  his  beloved  disciple  John,  Ye  know  ho 
was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sin."  1  John  iii.  5. 

But  here  follows  the  grand  objection,  and  indeed  the  only- 
plausible  objection  that  I  have  ever  heard  to  this  view  of  the 
subject.  This  being  removed,  I  think  every  difficulty  would 
vanish  with  it — the  use  of  weak  and  beggarly  elements"  would 
indeed  decrease" — the  true  baptism  of  our  Lord  would  be  bet- 
ter understood  and  more  fully  experienced  in  his  chruch. 

W^e  will  now  consider  the  nature  of  tliis  objection,  which  is 
<  learly  and  strongly  expressed  in  Paul's"  address  to  us  before 
((uoted — "-^To  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  was  no  more  in  the 
power  of  the  Jpostles  than  to  create  a  world,"  This  position  is 
so  clear  that  it  camiot  de  denied,  and  I  grant  it  in  full.  I  am 
sure  the  Society  of  Friends  never  held  a  contrary  opinion.  But 
ih  order  that  this  argument  should  have  any  vreight.  it  must  be 


32 


sliewn  that  the  text  necessarily  implies  that  if  the  Apostles  were 
to  bnptizc  with  the  Spirit,  they  must  do  it  h\  their  own  potver. 

Now  I  think  this  is  impossible  to  be  demonstrated.  I  know- 
very  well  that  no  man  can  hy  his  own  power  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Spirit — and  it  is  equally  certain,  that  no  man  can  hy  his 
own  power  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ — no  man  can  hy  his 
own  porver  convert  a  heathen — no  man  can  hy  his  own  power 
put  up  to  heaven  one  true  prayer.  No  man,  (says  the  Apos- 
tle, 1  Cor.  xiii.  4.)  can  (truly)  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but 
by  the  Holy  Ghost." 

This  Divine  Spirit  sent  down  from  Heaven,  and  operating  on 
the  soul  of  man,  is  as  necessary  to  all  these  acts,  and  indeed  to 
everv  act  of  true  worship,  as  it  is  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
— so  that  if  Paul's"  objection  is  valid  in  the  first  instance,  it; 
is  equally  valid  in  all  the  rest — if  it  proves  that  spiritual  bap- 
tism is  impossible  to  the  true  minister  of  Christ,  it  proves  that 
all  our  worship,  all  our  prayers  are  vain  and  useless. 

But  our  Lord  who  knew  the  objections  that  would  be  made  to 
this  divine  commission  takes  care  to  obviate  them, — First,  by 
assuring  his  true  ministers  that  '*  all  power  was  given  to  him 
in  Heaven  and  in  earth."  Where  he  is  there  is  divine  power — . 
and  then  by  giving  them  a  promise,  which  has  never  been  an- 
nulled, Lo  I  am  with  you  always  even  to  the  end  of  the  world.^ 
I  have  commanded  you  to  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
I  will  enable  you  to  perform  my  command. 

If  the  limits  of  my  Essays  permitted  it,  I  could  show  from 
clear  texts  of  Scripture,  that  this  kind  of  baptism  did  actually  at- 
tend the  Apostles'  ministry,  as  in  Acts  xi.  15. — and  we  do  certain- 
ly know  from  real  experience,  that  though  it  is  not  confined  to 
time,  place  or  circumstance,  yet  that  it  attends  the  gospel  min- 
istry, dow  n  to  the  present  day,  wj^ich  to  us  is  conclusive  on  this 
point. 

Second  Argument.  I  will  now  take  up  the  only  remaining  ar- 
gument w  ith  which  I  am  acquainted  that  is  used  to  prove  water 
baptism  to  be  a  Christian  ordinance.  It  is  stated  by  *<  Paul" 
in  these  words,  The  Apostles  actually  applied  water  to  their 
converts."  He  ought  to  have  said,  *'  actually  baptized  them  in 
water  :  for  I  cannot  find  in  all  the  New  Testament,  one  solitary 
instance  of  their  applying  water  to  their  converts,  though  there 
-are  several  instances  where  they  applied  their  converts  to  the 
ivater. 

In  order  to  understand  the  value  of  this  argument,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  take  a  view  of  the  state  of  tlie  primitive  Church 
for  the  first  thirty  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord.  I  w41l 
endeavour  to  do  this  from  the  plain  testimony  of  the  sacred 
writings,  the  legitimate  source  of  evidence,  and  the  best  kind  of 


33 


testimony  left  us  of  its  condition  diirins;  that  period.  From  this 
source  it  is  very  evident  that  the  ApostJes  and  pri  nitive  believers 
did  not  suddenly  perceive  the  true  design  of  the  advent  of  our 
Lord,  and  in  many  things  were  mistaken  as  to  the  real  nature  of 
the  dispensation  he  came  to  introduce.  In  proof  of  this  I  shall 
adduce  some  pLiin  scripture  testimony  as  a  kind  of  evidence  that 
we  all  agree  is  decisive  on  any  question  relating  to  our  faith. 

The  first  case  I  shall  bring  into  view,  is  that  of  the  A])ostle 
Peter,  who  during  eight  yeai's  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  re- 
mained under  a  belief  that  it  was  unlawful  to  communicate  with 
the  Gentiles,  or  to  preach  the  gosprl  to  them.  This  mistake  is 
The  more  remarkable  as  the  prophets  had  so  clearly  predicted 
the  call  of  the  Gentiles,  and  their  equal  participation  in  the  be- 
nefits of  Christ's  coming,  and  also  as  Peter  had  had  the  benefit 
of  his  Lord's  example,  which  was  certainly  calculated  to  re- 
move such  an  error ;  yet  notwithstanding  all  this,  so  strong 
were  his  prejudices  against  the  Gentiles  that  the  force  of  a  Di- 
vine vision  was  employed  to  remove  them  ;  it  was  not  till  then 
that  he  perceived  of  a  truth  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons, but  that  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and  workctli 
righteousness  is  accepted  of  him."  And  it  appears  by  the  his- 
tory that  Peter  was  afterwards  called  to  a  sharp  account  for  his 
«ondescension.  Those  members  of  the  Church  who  had  heen 
converted  from  Judaism  contended  with  him  on  the  subject, 
blaming  him  for  going  in  unto  the  Gentiles  and  eating  with  them  ; 
and  it  was  not  until  he  had  related  thei circumstances  of  his  vi- 
sion that  they     held  their  peace."    See  Acts  x.  and  xi. 

It  also  further  appears  that  nineteen  years  after  our  Lord's 
ascension,  the  question  whether  all  the  members  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  should  submit  to  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  de- 
bated in  a  council  of  tlie  Apostles  and  Elders  at  Jerusalem, 
when  it  was  first  settled  that  the  Gentile  bretliren  should  be  ex- 
empted fi*om  this  ceremony.  See  Acts  xv.  Twenty  years  af- 
ter the  Ascension,  Paul  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  circumcised 
Timothy  himself.  Acts  xvi.  3.  Twenty -two  years  after  the 
same  period,  Paul  took  the  Nazarite's  vow  as  prescribed  m  Num- 
bers vi.  and  when  the  days  of  his  separation  were  ended,  had 
his  head  shaved,  to  show  the  accomplishment  of  his  vow.  Acts 
xviii.  18.  Twenty-seven  yciiYs  after  the  same  period,  the  same 
Apostle  at  the  particular  request  of  the  Apostle,James,  and  all 
the  elders  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  took  four  men  who  had 
made  the  vow  of  the  Nazarite,  and  purifying  himself  with  tiiem 
(according  to  the  Law  of  Moses,)  entered  into  the  temple  to  sig- 
nify the  accomplishment  of  the  days  of  purification  until  tliat  an 
offering  should  be  offered  for  every  one  of  them."  Sec  Acts  xxi. 
;36.    This  circumstance  is  marked  with  peculiar  force  when  we 


54 

i 


ooiiskter  tliat  this  act  of  the  Apostle,  at  the  request  of  the  Clnirch, 
A\  as  a  Jewish  rite,  was  one  of  the  ordinances  abolished  by  Christ 
and  by  him  taken  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to  the  cross'' — it 
was  a  rite  accompanied  with  numerous  sacrifices.  A  he-lamb 
for  a  burnt  offering — a  ewe  lamb  for  a  sin  offering — a  ram  for  a 
peace  offering — a  basket  of  unleavened  bread — cakes  of  fine  flour 
mingled  with  oil — wafers  of  unleavened  bread  anointed  with 
oil — meat  offerings  and  drink  offerings. 

NoAV  can  it  be  a  matter  of  wonder  if  these  eminent  Apostles 
and  elders  of  the  church,  twenty,  seven  years  after  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  gospel  which  was  intended  to  put  an  end  to  the  cere- 
monial institutions  of  the  law  that  **  stood  only  in  meats  and 
drinks,  and  divers  washings  and  carnal  ordinances  imposed  on 
them  till  tlie  time  of  reformation."  Heb.  ix.  10.  I  say  can  it  be 
any  matter  of  wonder  that  the  apostles  and  church  who  were  so 
zealous  in  tlie  Law  of  Moses,  twenty-seven  years  after  it  was 
abolished,  should  also  be  found  in  the  occasional  use  of  John's 
Baptism  ?  If  they  could  yet  light  up  their  altars,  slay  their  beasts 
and  offe;*  their  victims,  is  it  any  wonder  they  should  not  yet  lay 
aside  tiie  Baptism  of  Water?  I  leave  tlie  reader  to  draw  his  own 
conclusions. 

There  is  one  more  circumstance  which  I  think  worthy  of  re- 
mark, before  I  leave  this  sub  ject.  Twenty-Jive  years  after  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  Paul  met  Peter  at  Antioch,  where  they  had 
an  open  dissension  on  the  subject  of  Jewish  ceremonies.  Paul 
withstood  him  to  tlie  fac€>^  and  sharply  rebuked  him  for  compel- 
ling the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ;"  but  what  was  very 
singular  the  Apostle  Paul  himself,  two  years  after  he  had  thus 
severely  blamed  Peter  for  his  dissimulation,  went  to  Jerusalem 
and  fell  into  the  same  snare,  by  conforming  io  Jewish  ceremonies^ 
at  the  request  of  the  Apostle  James  and  the  church,  and  was 
near  losing  his  life  iii  consequence.  See  Acts  xxi.  31. 
Gal.  ii.  11. 

From  tliis  view  of  the  subject,  it  is  evident  that  the  practice 
of  the  Ai)ostles,  with  respect  to  outward  ceremonies  and  the  use 

carnal  ordinances  in  the  early  periods  of  the  church,  is  no  infal- 
lible criterion  of  their  evangelical  nature.  They  had  been  edu- 
cated in  them,  were  strongly  attached  to  them.  These  ceremo- 
nies had  been  divinely  instituted  and  reverently  regarded.  It 
is  not  therefore  reasonable  to  suppose  they  could  be  instantane- 
ously abandoned.  It  fully  appears  from  the  scriptures,  that  the 
primitive  ministers  of  the  church  were  slow  to  perceive  their  in- 
consistency with  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  that  after  this  was 
discovered  they  were  cautious  of  alarming  the  prejudices  of  their 
new  converts  by  preaching  against  them  ;  that  they  therefore 
not  only  indulged  them  in  the  use  of  Water  Baptism,  but  of 


4 


many  other  ceremonies  wliicli  were  instituted  by  tlie  Law  of 
Moses,  as  we  see  by  the  foregoing  quotations. 

It  is  said  tiie  Apostles  actually  baptized  their  converts  in 
water,"  and  the  inference  drawn  from  this  fact  is  tliat  ministers 
tiow  ought  to  do  so  too.  Now  if  this  is  sound  reasoning  in  one 
case,  it  must  be  sound  in  another.  The  Apostles  actually  cu*- 
cumcised  their  converts,  therefore  we  ought  to  circumcise  ours. 
The  Apostles  compelled  their  converts  to  live  as  do  the  Jews, 
therefore  we  ought  to  compel  ours  to  observe  the  Laws  of  Moses. 
These  conclusions  though  fairly  made  from  the  premises,  I  ap- 
prehend few  will  admit.  The  argument  drawn  from  the  practice 
of  the  Apostles,  if  it  prove  any  thing,  proves  too  much,  and 
therefore  the  whole  conclusion  falls  to  the  ground. 

We  find  however  in  tlie  later  periods  of  the  church  when  the 
Apostles  had  fully  experienced  the  inefficacy  of  Water  Baptism, 
and  the  powerful  nature  of  the  baptism  of  Christ,  that  according 
to  the  prediction  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  use  of  -water  decreased, 

Paul  speaking  of  Water  Baptism  expressly  tells  the  Corin- 
thians he  thanked  God  that  he  had  baptized  so  few  of  them, 
for  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel ; 
which  could  not  be  true  if  our  Lord  in  that  commission.  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  to  his  ministers  meant  Water  Baptism.  And  Peter 
speaking  of  the  baptism  that  saxes  the  soul,  says  it  is  not  the 
putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  which  is  the  only  property  of 
the  watery  institution,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  to- 
wards God,  which  is  the  express  design  and  true  effect  of  the 
baptism  of  Christ.    See  1  Cor.  i.  14.  and  1  Peter  iii.  21. 

The  Apostle  to  the  Ephesians,  Chapter  iv.  declares  there 
is  one  Lord,  one  faitli,  one  Baptism,  one  God,  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  you  all,  and  in  you  all."  This 
one  Baptism  is  the  baptism  of  that  one  Lord,  and  not  the  carnal 
baptism  oione  of  his  creatures,  else  we  must  exclude  the  baptism 
of  the  one  Spirit  by  which  all  true  christians  are  baptized  into 
the  one  body:  for  saith  the  Apostle,  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  By  one 
Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free,  and  have  all  been  made 
to  drink  into  one  Spirit.^' 

It  is  clear  from  many  plain  texts  of  Scripture,  that  Water 
Baptism"  is  not  the  baptism  of  Christ.  It  is  expressly  assert- 
ed, John  iv.  2.  that  Christ  did  not  practice  it,  and  there  is  not 
the  least  proof  that  he  ever  commanded  it.  It  is  contrary  to 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  gospel,  which  was  not  intended  to 
institute  signs  sind  symbols,  but  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteous- 
ness in  their  stead.  And  therefore,  the  Society  of  Friends,  in 
conformity  with  what  they  deem  plain  scripture  doctrine,  dare 
not  *•  turn  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,"  Ga!.  iv. 


50 


9.  but  direct  tlieir  attention  and  the  attention  of  their  hearers, 
to  Chi  ist  the  anomted  teacher  ot  the  New  Covenant  Dispensa- 
tion, that  **  word  of  grace"  in  the  soul  which  is  able  to  huild  it 
up  in  the  most  holy  faitli,  and  give  it  an  inheritance  amongst  all 
them  that  are  sanctified. 

In  my  next,  I  intend  to  treat  of  the  Passover  Supper,  com- 
nionlv  called  the  Eucharist. 

AMICUS. 

Seventh-day,  -jth  Mo.  28,  iBit 

LETTER  VIL 

Ix  my  last  Essay,  I  treated  of  AVater  Baptism,  and  proved  by 
many  j  lain  Scripture  Testimonies  that  it  is  no  **  Ordinance  of 
Christ," — tliat  our  Lord  never  practised  it,  nor  gave  any  pre- 
cept or  command  to  his  disciples  to  use  or  administer  it  in  any 
way  whatever.  I  now  come  to  give  my  view  s  of  what  has  been 
emphatically  termed  Jlugiistissimum  Eucharistiae  Sacramen- 
tiimf^'  the  ceremony  of  taking  Bread  and  Wine,  from  which,  an 
•eminent  christian  and  scholar  of  the  seventeenth  century  has 
said,  **  not  only  the  greatest  and  fiercest  and  most  hurtful  con- 
tests, both  among  the  professors  of  Christianity,  in  general,  and 
among  Protestants  in  pailicular  have  aiisen,  but,  also  such  ab- 
surdities, irrational  and  blasphemous  consef|uences  have  ensued, 
as  make  the  christian  religion  odious  and  hateful  to  Jews,  Turk^ 
and  Heathens. 

I  shall  first  attempt  to  shew  that  this  is  no  institution  of  Christ. 
Secondly,  that  it  never  was  practised  by  the  Apostles  ;  and 
thirdly,  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion. And 

First,  That  this  is  no  institution  of  Christ,  is  I  think,  evident 
from  the  language  of  all  the  four  Gospels.  Matthew  and  John 
were  the  only  Evangelists  who  were  present  at  the  Feast  which 
has  given  rise  to  this  ceremony.  John  it  appears  tliought  the 
circumstance  so  immaterial,  that  he  has  given  no  account  of  it, 
although  he  relates  some  remarkable  occurrences  which  took 
place  when  the  Supper  was  over,  and  wliich  I  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  notice  hereafter.  In  order  that  the  reader  may  judge 
how  far  tlie  text  will  support  my  present  position,  I  will  quote 
the  passage  as  it  stands  in  Matt.  xxvi.  17,  18,  19. 

"Now  the  first  day  of  the  Feast  of  unleavened  bread  the  disci- 
ples came  to  Jesus,  saying  unto  him,  wliere  wilt  thou  .that  we^ 
propare  for  thee  to  eat  f/.e  Passover  ?  And  he  said,  go  intr.  ♦iie 
rity  to  suck  a  man  and  say  unto  him,  the  Master  saith  my  time 


57 


is  at  hand,  I  will  keep  the  Passover  at  thy  house  with  my  disci- 
ples. And  the  discijiies  did  as  Jesus  liad  commanded  them,  and 
inade  ready  the  Passover/' 

In  these  tlirce  short  verses  the  Supper"  is  three  times  called 
the  **  Passover,^'  and  once  the  Feast  of  unleavened  bread.''  I 
tliink  that  this  passage  clearly  proves  that  this  was  no  new  In- 
stitution.  It  \vas  the  "  Feast  of  the  Passover"  instituted  fifteen 
hundred  and  eighty  years  before  that  time. 

1  am  not  ignorant  of  the  attempts  which  have  been  made  by 
College  made  christians  to  prove  that  this  was  not  tlie  Jewisk 
Passover  wliich  our  Lord  celebrated — they  saw  tliat  this  view 
of  the  subject  militated  against  the  high  character  they  had 
stamped  on  this  ceremony.  Such  weak  elTorts  can  however  have 
no  oiher  effect  than  wholly  to  invalidate  the  sacred  text,  since  no 
proposition  can  be  more  clearly  demonstrated  by  scripture,  no 
fact  better  established  than  this  can  be.  Matthew  three  times 
writes  it  "  the  Passover."  Mark  writes  it  five  times  **  the  Pass- 
over," Mark  xiv.  Luke  writes  it  six  times  **  the  Passover,'* 
Luke  xxii,  and  John  the  Evangelist  calls  it  the  Feast  of  tht 
Passover  "  John  xiii.  These  authorities  establish  my  first  posi- 
tion beyond  a  doubi.  I  could  bring  to  its  support  the  opinions 
of  many  eminent  writers  of  different  religious  persuasions  who 
acknowledge  that  our  Lord  was  celebrating  ^^the  Passover'* 
when  he  distributed  the  bread  and  wine  at  Supper,  but  I  wish  to 
be  brief,  and  think  it  needless. 

I  will  now  attempt  to  shew  tliat  our  Lord  on  that  occasion  not 
only  celebrated  an  ancient  Jewish  Festival,  but  that  he  instituted 
no  new  ceremony  at  that  time.  The  breaking  of  Bread  and  dis- 
tribution of  Wine  with  the  blessing  on  both,  were  tlie  common 
rites  of  tliis  Feast,  as  Cradock,  in  liis  Harmony  of  the  Four 
Evangelists  assures  us  on  the  authority  of  Jewish  writers.  As 
the  account  is  interesting  and  pertinent  to  my  purpose,  I  will 
miike  an  extract  from  it. 

1.  **  Wlien  ail  things  appertaining  to  the  Feast  were  prepar- 
ed, and  all  persons  belonging  to  that  company  were  ready,  the 
chief  man  of  the  company  takes  a  cup  of  wine  ami  blesseth  it  in 
some  such  w^ords  as  these — Blessed  be  thou  O  Lord,  who  hast 
created  the  fruit  of  the  Vine,*'  &:c. 

2.  *'  Tlie  table  w^as  then  furnished  with  provisions  of  several 
sorts,  viz.  bitter  herbs,  unleavened  bread,  the  body  of  the  pas- 
chal lamb  roasted  whole.  The  later  Jews  added  a  dish  of 
thick  sauce,  called  Ch.vrosett,  made  of  dates,  figs,  rasins  and 
vinegar  mingled  together,  (which  was  not  commanded  in  the 
Law)  as  a  memorial  to  them  of  the  clay  in  wiiich  their  fathers 
laboured  in  the  land  of  Egypt." 

"i.  **  The  chief  man  of  the  company  takes  the  sour  herbs  and 

a 


3« 

blesses  them,  fee.  and  eats  thereof  the  quantity  of  an  Olive,  and 
distributes  to  the  rest." 

4.  ^*Then  he  takes  the  dish  or  charger,  which  held  the  un- 
leavened bread  or  cakes,  and  laying  by  a  piece  of  the  unleaven- 
ed bread  to  be  taken  afterwai'ds  with  the  paschal  lamb  at  the 
close  of  the  supper,  he  blesses  the  bread  in  such  words  as  these — • 

Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord,  who  bringest  forth  bread  out  of  the 
earth,  &c.    Then  he  breaks  it  and  eats  of  it." 

5.  When  this  is  finished,  he  begins  the  second  cup  of  wine, 
and  the  rest  follow  him.  Then  children  used  to  be  brought  in, 
and  were  made  to  ask,  what  is  the  reason  this  night  differs  so 
much  from  other  nights — instancing  many  particulars  of  the 
festival  solemnities.  Then  the  master  of  the  feast  begins  a  nar- 
rative, telling  how  tliey  were  all  servants  in  Egypt,  and  that 
night  God  redeemed  them,  kc,  this  kind  of  declaration  or  shew- 
ing forth  the  occasion  of  the  Passover,  and  God's  wonderful 
goodness  to  them  in  their  deliverance,  they  call  Haggadah, 
This  annunciation  or  shewing  forth  to  their  children  the  Lord's 
w  onderful  goodness  and  mercy,  we  find  commanded  in  Exodous 
iii.  8,  k  xii.  26,  27." 

6.  **Then  he  takes  that  part  of  the  unleavened  rake  which 
w^as  laid  aside  before,  and  blessing  it  and  giving  thanks  for  it  as 
before,  he  distributes  to  every  one  a  piece  to  eat  with  the  paschal 
lamb,  of  which  each  person  was  bound  to  eat  as  much  as  the 
quantity-  of  an  Olive  at  least." 

7.  All  ■  's  done,  tliey  drink  the  third  cup,  called  the  cup  of 
Blessing  or  uianksgiving,  after  meat.  And  this  third  cup  which 
was  after  supper,  was  the  cup  which  our  Saviour  (as  it  seemeth) 
applied  to  a  new  spiritual  signification." 

8.  After  tliis  they  sung  the  '  Hallel'  or  Hymn,  and  so  con- 
cluded the  supper."    So  says  Cradock. 

Thus  it  appeal's  that  our  Lord  did  not  then  institute  any  new 
ordinance,  and  that  he  attended  to  those  rites  only,  which  were 
universally  observed  by  the  Jews  at  the  Feast  of  the  Passover. 
As  chief  man  of  the  feast  he  only  performed  those  ceremonies 
which  the  chief  man  of  this  feast  always  performed  at  the  cele- 
bration of  it;  though  as  Cradock  says  '*he  applied  them  to  a 
new  spiritual  signification."  He  endi^avoured  to  turn  their  at- 
tention to  the  mystical  import  of  this  solemn  ^.stival.  The  words 
**  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  are  in  the  present  tense,  they 
allude  to  a  present  act,  and  simply  mean  as  I  conceive,  "eat  this 
bread  in  remembrance  of  its  great  antitype,  the  Spint  of  Christy 
who  is  able  to  deliver  you  from  a  harder  bondage  than  Pharaoh's, 
a  deeper  darkness  than  the  darkness  of  Egypt." 

If  those  who  differ  from  us  in  opinion,  do  not  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Transubstantiation,  I  cannot  see  how  they  can  fairly  put  a 


59 


different  construction  on  our  Saviour  s  words — He  says.  "  tiiiti 
is  my  body  which  is  given  for  you — this  is  my  blood  of  the  New 
Testament," — here  he  calls  the  bread  and  wine  his  body  and 
blood.  Now  I  cannot  see  more  than  two  ways  of  interpi-eting^ 
these  expressions — the  one  literally,  the  otlier  spiritually.  If 
we  take  them  literally,  we  fall  into  downrii^iit  popery,  we  em- 
brace the  dark  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation — if  wc  take 
them  spiritually,  they  must  refer  to  his  spiritual  body  and  blood. 
The  Society  of  Friends  prefer  the  latter  mode  of  interpretation, 
for  which  preference,  I  will  quote  some  plain  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, exactly  pertinent  to  this  subject,  in  which  the  interpreta- 
tion we  have  adopted,  is  sanctioned  by  the  highest  authority, 
that  of  Christ  himself. 

Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  fiesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood  ye 
have  no  life  in  you.    Whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my 
Hood  hatli  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  \nm  up  at  the  last  day  : 
for  my  flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I 
in  him.    As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I  live  by  tlie 
Father,  so  he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall  live  by  me.    This  is 
that  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven,  not  as  your  fathers  did 
eat  Manna,  and  are  dead ;  he  that  eateth  this  bread  shall  live 
forever."  John  vi.  53.  At  these  expressions  the  disciples  of  our 
Lord  murmured  ;  they  did  not  perceive  tlieir  mystical  meaning — - 
their  views  were  yet  carnal.  He,  when  he  knew  they  murmured, 
said  to  them,    Doth  this  offend  you  r"    He  seemed  surprised 
that  they  who  had  so  often  heard  him  deliver  divine  truths  in  pa- 
rables and  allegories,  should  be  offended  at  this  mode  of  speech — 
and  then  added,  **It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth  (that  giveth 
life)  the  fliesh  profiteth  nothing.    The  words  that  I  speak  unto 
you  they  are  spint  and  they  are  life,^*   Here  he  unravels  the 
mystery  !  Shews  them  that  under  the  figures  of  bread  flesh 
?.nd  blood  he  was  speaking  of  that  divine  Spirit  which  only  can 
give  life  to  the  soul — a  participation  in  which  is  the  true  Supper 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.    See  Rev.  iii.  20. 

Had  the  church  of  Rome  taken  Christ  as  his  own  interpreter, 
we  should  never  have  heard  of  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation, they  would  not  have  disgraced  the  profession  of 
the  christian  religion  by  faggot  and  fire,  torture  and  bloodshed 
to  enforce  their  carnal  views.  If  the  I'eformed  churches  had 
clearly  perceived  the  meaning  of  this  text,  '*  my  words  they  are 
spirit  and  they  are  life,"  we  should  not  sec  them  at  this  day  per- 
petuating the  Je^vish  Passover  under  the  appellation  of  a  sacra- 
ment,^^ under  the  title  of  a  Romish  military  otLth,  a  word  having 
no  synonym  in  the  sacred  volume,  neither  should  we  hear  them 


66 


calling  it  a  Seal  of  God^s  Govenant^^  contrary  to  the  express 
language  of  scripture,  and  without  one  solitary  text  to  support 
its  title  to  such  a  distinction. 

When  the  reformation  from  Popery  was  carried  on  by  Lutlier 
and  Calvin.,  they  differed  widely  on  the  subject  of  this  "  sacra- 
ment" as  it  is  termed.  Luther  held  the  doctrine  of  Consubstan- 
tiation,  that  is,  that  the  very  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  the  same 
that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  IMary  and  suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate  is  after  consecration  by  the  priest,  substantially  present  to- 
gether with  the  substance  of*  bread  and  wine,  and  that  the  wor- 
thy receiver  partakes  of  both.  Calvin  taught  that  the  outward 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  there  corporeally  or  substan- 
tially, but  yet  that  it  is  really  and  sacramen tally  received  by  the 
faithful  in  the  use  of  bread  and  wine ;  but  how  this  outward 
body  and  blood  could  be  corporeally  absent  and  yet  really  present, 
Calvin  confessed  he  could  not  explain, and  indeed  it  is  impos- 
sible to  explain  it.  In  such  absurdities,  such  inextricable  dif- 
ficulties do  men  involve  themselves  by  leaving  the  plain  path 
marked  out  by  our  blessed  Lord,  to  wander  in  the  confused  ki- 
byrintli  of  human  contrivance. 

Modern  Calvinists  and  others,  seeing  many  insurmountable 
difficulties  in  both  these  schemes,  have  I  believe,  lowered  their 
views  of  this  "  ordinance"  as  they  call  it,  and  now  consider  it 
*'2L  commemoration  of  Christ's  death."  I  will  now  offer  a  few 
remarks  on  the  latter  view  of  this  subject.  If  my  leader  will 
consult  the  accounts  given  by  the  three  Evangelists,  ^^  lio  relate 
the  circumstances  of  this  supper,  he  will  find  that  Luke  is  the 
only  one  who  adds  any  words  importing  a  remembiance  o? 
Christ — This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  Our  Lord  does 
not  say,  do  this  in  remembrance  of  my  death — literally  it  con- 
veys no  such  meaning,  but  taken  in  connexion  with  the  context 
appears  clearly  to  mean,  that  as  the  bread  and  iviiie  were  sym- 
bols of  his  s})iritual  body  and  blood,  so  they  should  at  that  time 
eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup  in  remembrance  of  that 
Divine  Spirit  which  should  shortly  be  poured  out  upon  all  flesh 
in  a  more  eminent  degree  than  it  then  was  under  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation. 

I  think  the  unprejudiced  reader  must  be  satisfied  with  the 
proofs  I  have  adduced  to  show  that  the  use  of  bread  and  wine  as 
a  religious  ceremony  is  no  institution  of  Christ's."  The  lim- 
its of  my  essay  will  not  permit  me  to  pursue  the  subject  further 
at  this  time — in  my  next  I  shall  endeavour  to  show — that  the 
Apostles  never  used  them  as  a  religious  rite,  for  this  purpose  I 
shall  as  heretofore  rely  on  plain  Scripture  evidence,  an  autliori- 
ty  that  I  am  fully  persuaded  will  confirm  such  a  position. 

AMICUS. 

*  See  h)^  Institute  lib.  iv.  chap.  17,  sect.  32 


61 


St^enth'day,-;th  Ma.  ai.igi:. 

NOTES. 

AMICUS  TO  PAUL.* 

$        "Amicus'*  acknowledges     Paul's"  condescension  in 
permitting  him  to  take  even  ground  with  him,  and  will  endea- 
vour "  to  come  to  the  point,"  in  the  discussion  now  pending,  as 
directly  as  the  nature  of  his  concern  will  admit.    It  ought  how- 
ever to  he  remembered,  that  the  view  of  **  Amicus,"  as  express- 
ed in  his  first  nunHier,  was  not  to  enter  into  a  controversy.  He 
knew  that  the  Society  of  which  he  was  a  member,  was  grossly 
misrepresented,  he  believed  that  many  pious  persons  of  other 
religious  persuasions,  had  been  made  to  suppose  tliat  we  held 
doctrines  inimical  to  the  christian  religion.    It  was  for  tlie  sake 
of  these,  principally,  that  he  took  up  his  pen.    To  appear  on 
the  Arena,  in  the  character  of  a  religious  gladiator,  was  not  hi3 
design.    Such  a  character  might  amuse  the  thoughtless  multi- 
tude, but  could  not  advance  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  in  th© 
earth,  neither  did  he  suppose  tliat  he  could  produce  any  effect  on 
those  whose  interest  it  is  to  traduce  us,  or  on  those  who  are  so 
bigotted  as  to  suppose  there  are  no  christians  beside  the  subscri- 
bers to  their  own  creed.    With  these  views,  he  has  abstained 
from  the  use  of  abusive  epithets.    He  has  not  called  his  adversa- 
ry    a  Deist,"  an Atheist,"  an     Infidel"  or  a  Heathen." 
He  is  aware  that  such  a  course  might  suit  a  vulgar  taste,  but 
must  offend  the  sober  candid  christian  of  all  denominations. 
He  remembers  that  to  "be  courteous,"  is  a  precept  of  the  gos- 
pel. 1  Peter  iii.  8  :  and  has  not  forgotten  the  scripture  admoni- 
tion.   Let  not  him  that  girdeth  on  the  harness,  boast  himself  as 
he  that  putteth  it  off."    A  man  may  vindicate  his  opinions  with- 
out being  rude,  may  sustain  the  character  of  a  christian,  without 
laying  aside  the  gentleman.    "Amicus"  still  means  to  pursue 
his  original  plan,  and  asks  no  more  than  a  fair  hearing,  and  he 
may  add,  from  the  candid  conduct  of  the  Editor  so  far,  he  con- 
fidently expects  it.    He  will  be  as  brief  as  tlie  design  of  convey- 
ing information,  to  the  candid  inquirer  will  admit.   And  though 
he  thinks  he  ought  to  have  room  to  answer  objections  already 
made  against  us,  before  any  more  are  brought  before  the  public, 
yet  if  the  Editor  thinks  otherwise, *he  will  cheerfully  submit. 

•  This  note  should  have  been  Inserted  previous  to  the  last,  or  7th  Letter  of 
Atwicvs.  *  id's. 


0 


65 


Saturday^  yuly  28,  iSai- 

PAVL  TO  AMICUS, 

^<Let  the  righteous  smite  me  it  shall  be  a  kindness  ;  and  let 
him  reprove  me  it  shall  be  an  excellent  oil,  which  shall  not 
break  my  head ;  for  yet  my  prayer  shall  be  for  them."  Ps.  141,  5. 

Though  I  am  not  conscious  of  using  in  my  letters  to  the 
Friends,  one  expression  in  the  least  degree  untrue,  un  just  or  un- 
charitable ;  and  though  I  have  not  used  one  expression  more  se- 
Tere  than  I  would  have  used,  on  a  similar  occasion,  to  my  dear- 
est friend ;  yet  from  your  general  candor  anU  moderation,  and 
the  frequency  with  which  you  censure  my  style  and  manner,  I 
am  bound  to  suspect  myself  of  some  error  on  this  head.  And 
therefore,  to  spare  your  feelings,  and  prevent  so  much  waste  of 
time  and  temper  I  promise  hereafter  to  be  more  watchful  of  my 
spirit,  and  careful  of  my  language.  Yet  however  **  rude  and 
uncourteous"  I  may  have  been,  I  can  never  have  deserved  the 
unkind,  ungenerous  insinuations  of  last  week.  However,  this 
I  leave  *no  Him  who  judgeth  righteously." — Whether  it  be  more 
^^rude"  in  me  to  attack  doctrine,  or  in  you  to  arraign  motives  ; 
whether  it  be  more  uncourteous"  in  me  to  retire  that  you 
may  have  place,  or  in  you  to  croud  me  out  of  my  place ; — wheth- 
er it  be  more  "  gentlemanly"  in  me  to  treat  Amicus  with  re- 
spect, or  m  him  to  treat  Paul  with  contempt ;  whether  it  be 
most  gladiatorial,"  instead  of  meeting  me  in  the  open  arena" 
gf  fair  controversy,  to  retire  behind  a  fort  and  say  **  stand  still 
and  let  me  fire,"  or  to  stand  unarmed  and  say  fire  away  **  till 
yon  are  satisfied,'^ — is  of  little  consequence,  as  no  impropriety 
on  your  part  will  justify  any  on  mine. 

In  this  discussion,  (which  is  not  the  ebullition  of  a  moment^ 
but  the  result  of  much  prayer,  of  long  anxiety  and  earnest  in- 
quiry after  duty)  I  have  the  clearest  consciousness  of  purity  of 
motive  and  of  that  heaven-born  charity  which  desires  the  higliest 
welfare  of  all  mankind.  In  it  I  am  prepared  for  much  censure 
and  reproach  from  mistaken  Christians  and  an  uncandid  world. 

None  of  these  things  move  me,"  neither  count  I  my  reputa- 
tion dear,  so  that  I  may  propagate  the  truth.  After  hearing 
your  preachers,  reading  your  books,  conversing  with  your  peo- 
ple, and  observing  your  conduct  for  many  years,  I  do  sincerely 
believe,  as  I  know  the  greatest  and  best  men  in  our  country  be- 
lieve, that  Friendism  (excuse  the  term)  is  a  specious  kind  of  in- 
fidelity, a  spurious  Christianity,  a  graft  of  Deism  upon  the  gos- 
pel stock.  I  speak  of  your  system  as  a  system  without  denying 
what  I  fully  believe,  that  there  are  among  you  real  saints.  The 
above  being  my  most  sincere  belief,  is  it  reasonable  to  demand 
that  I  should  treat  your  errors  as  innocent,  or  be  at  all  equivocal 


63 


in  the  opinions  I  express  ?  I  Avisli  always  to  speak  in  Christian 
simplicity  and  call  things  by  their  right  names.  Whether  or 
not,  my  views  ai*e  erroneous,  is  yet  to  be  seen.  But  of  this  I 
assure  you,  no  individual,  in  or  out  of  your  Society,  will  rejoice 
more  sincerely  in  your  complete  vindication  from  all  the  charges 
alleged  against  you,  than  he  whom  you  treat  as  a  sectarian,  a 
bigot,  a  persecutor  and  religious  gladiator. 

The  most  important  topics  of  discussion,  (If  any  can  be  more 
important  than  the  Supreme  Authority  of  the  Scriptures)  are  yet 
to  come.  The  subjects  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  were 
discussed  before  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  Justi- 
fication, not  because  they  were  deemed  more  important,  but  be- 
cause your  doctrines,  which  on  every  essential  point  are  very 
equivocal  and  obscure,  on  these  subjects  were  plain  and  palpable. 

Your  late,  long  and  most  ingenious  essay  against  water  Bap- 
tism, I  am  very  anxious  to  answer.  But  as  it  seems  to  be  your 
wish  to  avoid  direct  controversy,  if  you  will  condescend  to  ex- 
plain your  views  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  and  Justification,  1  will  wait  with  patience  for  weeks, 
and  even  months.  A  regular  alternation  of  argument  however, 
would  better  suit  my  time  and  taste.  I  leave  you,  however,  to 
your  choice,  only  assuring  you  of  my  full  purpose  of  heart  to 
prosecute  this  subject,  and  that  whatever  you  may  call  me, 
however  you  may  treat  me,  I  am  without  hypocrisy,  in  true 
Christian  charity,  your  affectionate  friend. 

PAUL. 

Sfventh-day,9thMo.  4»  litr. 

LETTER  VTIL 

I  now  resume  the  subject  commenced  in  my  last  Essay,  in 
which  I  demonstrated  by  plain  Scripture  testimony  that  the  ce- 
i»emony  of  taking  bread  and  wine  commonly  called  the  Eu- 
charist" was  never  instituted  by  Christ.  I  shall  now  pursue 
the  other  branch  of  my  argument,  and  attempt  to  prove ; 
Secondly — That  it  never  rv as  practised  by  the  JlpostlesJ*^ 
I  am  a  ware  of  the  difficulty  of  proving  the  truth  of  a  nega- 
tive. I  know  that  sometimes  where  the  negative  position  is  pal- 
pably true — whei*e  no  one  entertains  the  least  doubt  of  it,  it  is  im- 
possible to  prove  it.  But  I  hope  in  the  present  case  to  satisfy 
every  unprejudiced  reader,  by  ample  Scripture  testimony  and 
sound  argument,  that  the  Jipostles  never  practised  the  ceremony 
of  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  as  a  religious  rite — that  they 
never  used  them  as  a  Sacrament  or  type  of  Christ's  mitivard  body 
or  blood,  or  as  a  memorial  of  his  death. 


64 


I  suppose  the  advocates  of  the  opposite  side  of  the  questio  n 
will  admit  that  if  the  Apostles  had  ever  so  used  them,  if  they 
had  considered  the  use  of  them  as  a  necessary  or  even  important 
memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ,  they  would  in  some  of  their 
various  writings,  have  left  us  some  proof  that  they  practised  it 
themselves.  I  cannot  see  how  any  who  contend  for  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  sacred  Volume,  who  tell  'us  it  contains  the 
wiiole  and  perfect  will  of  God,  and  it  is  a  perfect  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  can  deny  it. 

Now  as  the  author  of  the  Book,  entitled,  the  "  Acts  of  the 
Apostles"  never  mentions  this  ceremony  as  one  of  their  acts  ;  as 
the  several  Epistles  to  the  primitive  Churches  do  not  inform  us 
that  any  of  the  Apostles  ever  used  it,  I  think  I  might  here  safely 
rest  tlie  case,  and  fairly  put  my  opponent  to  prove  the  contrary 
position.  But  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  arguments  generally 
used  on  this  occasion,  1  shall  proceed  to  notice  them. 

First,  It  is  said  "  we  find  several  instances  recorded  by  Luke, 
where  the  disciples  broke  bread  together  with  thanksgiving,  and 
that  in  these  cases  they  w^ere  celebrating  the  Eucharist."  But 
the  conclusion  drawn  from  these  facts,  is  unwarranted  by  the 
premises,  as  I  shall  endeavour  to  demonstrate.  In  order  that 
the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  on  the  point,  I  will  quote  all 
the  passages  recorded  by  Luke,  that  allude  to  this  subject,  which 
so  far  from  confirming  such  an  inference,  will  show  that  it  is 
quite  unauthorized. 

The  Jirst  place  where  breaking  of  bread  is  mentioned  is  found 
in  Acts  ii.  42.  The  historian  speaking  of  the  new  converts, 
says,  "  and  they  continued  stedfastly  in  the  Apostles  doctrine 
and  in  the  breaking  of  bread  and  of  prayers."  The  second  is  in 
Acts  ii.  46.  And  they  continued  daily  with  one  accord  in  the 
temple,  and  breaking  bread  from  house  to  house  did  eat  their  meat 
with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart."  The  third  is  when 
Paul  met  the  brethren  at  Troas.  Luke  says,  **  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  breads 
Paul  preached  unto  them,  &c.  and  when  he  had  brokenbread  and 
eaten  and  talked  a  long  whilCf  even  till  break  of  day,  so  he  de- 
parted. See  Acts  xx.  7,  11.  The  fourth  and  last  case  of  the 
kind  was  wlicn  Paul  just  before  his  shipwreck,  after  his  fellow- 
passengers  had  fasted  foui'teen  days  and  had  taken  nothing, 
addressed  them  encouraging  them  to  eat.  And  alter  he  had 
spoken  **  he  took  bread,  and  gave  thanks  to  God  in  presence  of 
them  all,  and  when  he  had  broken  it  lie  began  to  eat ;"  tlien 
were  they  all  of  good  cheer,  and  they  also  took  some  meat.  See 
Acts  xxvii.  33,  bic. 

Now  1  appeal  to  every  unprejudiced  reader  to  say  if  there  is 
^ny  thing  in  these  texts  that  can  authorize  the  conclusion  tliat 


Q3 


either  the  Apostle  or  the  primitive  CliHstians  were  in  any  of 
these  cases  celebratini^  the  **  Eurharist.'-  Nothing;  as  I  con- 
ceive but  a  predetermination  to  support  tliis  carnal  ordinance  at 
the  ex|>ense  of  common  sense,  would  induce  a  writer  to  quote 
such  passages  for  tliis  purpose— that  because  men  broke  bread 
together,  and  afterwards  were  engaged  in  prayers — that  becaiise 
they  broke  bread  from  liouse  to  house  and  did  eat  their  meat  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart — or  because  when  they  came 
together  to  break  bread,  and  when  one  of  them  had  taken  it  and 
broken  it  and  eaten  and  talked  a  long  vhile  with  the  rest — or  be- 
cause a  minister  of  the  Gospel  after  being  tossed  many  (lays  in 
a  stt)rm  at  sea,  rmdiug  a  favorable  opportunity  to  satisfy  the  calls 
of  exhausted  nature,  and  desiring  to  encourage  the  dispirited 
weather-beaten  mariners  to  take  necessary  food,  had  taken  bread, 
and  with  thanks  to  a  merciful  Providence  who  had  perserved  their 
lives,  had  broken  it  and  did  cat — I  say,  that  because  of  these 
facts  we  should  infer  a  celebration  nf  the  Eucharist,  is  certainly 
one  of  the  most  extraordinary  conclusions  upon  record. 

But  those  who  contend  for  such  a  conclusion  have  other  insur- 
mountable didiculties  to  encounter.  I  think  my  readers  must 
have  noticed  as  they  attended  to  the  texts  I  havequ  >ted,  that  nei- 
ther the  wine  nor  the  aip  were  once  mentioned  or  alluded  to.  Now 
if  they  had  been  celebrating  a  meinorial  of  the  death  of  their 
Lord,  could  they  have  oinLtted  so  important  a  part  of  the  cere- 
mony ?  And  if  they  did  omit  it,  did  they  not  (according  to  the 
views  of  our  opponents)  break  their  hordes  express  command^ 
when  he  said  Drink  ye  all  of  it."  The  cup,"  says  Dr, 
Clarke,  (the  great  champion  of  the  Eucharist)  **  pointed  out 
fheverif  essence  of  the  institution" — **  the  cup  is  essential  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  All  who  are  in  t-ie  least  ac- 
quainted with  theological  controversy,  kfiow  how  severely  the 
Protestants  have  castigated  the  Roman  Catholics  for  refusing  the 
fup  to  the  laity.  The  author  last  referred  to,  says  *'  there  is  not 
a  Popish  priest  under  heaven,  who  denies  the  cup  to  tiie  people 
(and  they  all  do  this)  that  can  be  said  t')  celebrate  the  Lord's 
Supper  at  all.  Now  if  this  be  true,  what  conclusion  must  we 
draw  from  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Christians,  as  recorded 
by  Luke,  who  we  see  neitiier  administered  the  cup,  nor  used  it 
themselves  ?  I  leave  the  reader  to  answer  tlie  question  to  him- 
self. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  perliaps  Luke  forgot  to  mention 
it."  Ah  !  no  that  cannot  be.  I  a  n  very  sure  that  if  tho  Evan- 
gelist had  been  ono  in  sentiment  with  some  modern  Clii'ist-  ms, 
he  never  could  have  forg.jttenit — ^llc  would  iiave  written  it  a  wn 
in  very  con^^picuous  cliaracti^rs.  He  wlio  was  so  very  nr  n 't"  in 
his  history  as  to  relate  tiie  hoisting  of  a  mainsail,  the  weighing 


66 


of  an  anchor,  the  loosing  of  the  rudder  bands,  would  not  have 
omitted  to  mention  the  memorial  of  his  Lord's  ^'predom  hloodJ^ 
Let  tlie  serious  reader  maturely  consider  this  subject,  and  I 
think  lie  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  primitive  Chrig- 
rians  were  neither  celebrating  tlie  Passover  nor  any  other  reli- 
gious ceremony  on  these  occasions.  The  words  breaking  bread 
from  house  to  house^  eating  their  meat  with  gladness  and  single- 
ness of  heart,  breaking  bread  and  eating  it,  and  talking  a  long 
tvhile — with  the  other  1  have  quoted,  certainly  do  not  indicate  a 
celebration  of  the  Eucharist;  they  rather  convey  the  idea  that 
these  good  men  were  tliankfully  accepting  the  food  which  a 
bountiful  Providence  had  afforded  for  the  sustenance  of  their 
lives. 

But  happily  for  the  more  perfect  illustration  of  this  subject, 
Luke  himself  gives  us  a  key  to  unlock  the  meaning  of  these  ex- 
pressions. He  leaves  us  not  to  rest  upon  the  basis  of  conjec- 
tui-e.  AVe  are  informed  that  in  the  early  period  of  the  church  the 
believers     had  all  things  in  common."    See  Acts  iv.  32.  &c. 

for  as  many  as  were  possessors  of  lands  or  houses  sold  them 
and  brought  the  prices  of  the  things  that  were  sold,  and  laid  them 
down  at  the  Apostles'  feet,  and  distribution  was  made  unto  every 
man  according  as  he  had  need."  Here  we  see  the  old  system, 
the  private  exclusive  appropriation  of  property  was  abandoned, 
for  the  purpose  of  creating  a  common  stock.  He  afterwards,  Acts 
chap.  vi.  describes  the  difficulties  which  arose  out  of  this  new 
system.  ^'  For  when  the  number  of  disciples  was  multiplied, 
there  arose  a  murmuring  of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews, 
because  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration. 
Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them 
and  said,  It  is  not  reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of 
God  to  serve  tables."  Upon  which  sca  en  men  whose  names  arc 
mentioned,  were  appointed  to  the  particular  duty  of  serving  the 
tables.  From  these  views  it  appears  evident  that  their  common 
fund  was  appropriated  to  furnish  common  tables,  where  the  dis- 
ciples ate  in  companies  in  the  private  dwellings  of  the  believers. 
This  affords  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  terms  '*  breaking 
bread  from  house  to  house,"  where  "  they  eat  their  meat  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart" — in  a  thankful  remembrance 
of  the  author  of  every  blessing,  with  prayer  and  supplication 
for  the  continuance  of  his  mercy. 

I  shall  now  advert  to  the  only  remaining  passages  in  the  New 
Testament  on  wliich  our  opponents  rely  for  the  support  of  the 
ceremony  of  taking  bread  and  wine  as  a  memorial  of  the  death 
of  Christ.  They  are  found  in  the  xth  and  xith  chapters  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

In  the  tenth  chapter  tlie  Apostle  is  engaged  to  shew  the  Co'r- 


67 


iiithians  that  to  eat  at  the  tahle  of  idols  and  thereby  to  encouiv 
age  idolatry,  is  utterly  incompatible  with  a  spiritual  commu- 
nion of  a  believer  with  his  Lord,  as  from  a  perusal  of  the  whole 
passage  plainly  appears,  and  which  I  can  clearly  demonstrate  if 
it  should  appear  necessary.  Before  I  enter  on  the  discussion  of 
the  subjects  contained  in  the  eleventh  chapter  of  this  Epistle, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  give  a  short  view  of  the  state  of  the  Cor- 
inthians :  first,  generally,  and  then  of  the  church  in  particular. 
Ancient  Corinth  was  one  of  the  most  opulent  cities  of  Greece. 
Voluptuousness  and  Idolatry  the  general  concomitants  of  wealth, 
were  its  characteristics.  An  incredible  number  of  heathen  dei- 
ties were  there  worshipped,  to  enumerate  which  would  swell 
my  Essay  beyond  its  due  limits.  Venus  was  however  the  pre- 
eminent object  of  their  devotions.  Her  splendid  temple  was 
furnished  with  a  statue  of  the  goddess,  clad  in  bright  armour — 
another  of  the  god  of  love,  and  a  third  of  the  sun  which  had 
been  adored  at  Corinth  before  the  worship  of  Venus  was  intro- 
duced. Strabo  informs  us  that  the  temple  was  so  rich  that  it 
maintained  more  than  one  thousand  harlots  who  were  devoted  to 
her  service  and  ministered  her  unhallowed  rites.  We  are  in- 
formed by  Athenseus,  that  the  festivals  of  the  Aphrodosia  in 
honour  of  Venus  were  celebrated  in  the  city  by  women  of  infa- 
mous character,  and  with  the  most  abominable  ceremonies. 
Erasmus  in  his  Adagia,"  says  that  Corinth  was  filled  with 
courtezans.  The  men  were  distinguished  for  their  licentious- 
ness, luxury  and  idolatry.  Such  is  the  character  of  the  Corin^ 
thians  as  recorded  on  the  page  of  history.  How  strikingly  does 
this  character  correspond  with  that  given  by  tlie  Apostle,  even 
of  many  of  the  professors  of  Cliristianity  in  communion  with 
the  church  of  Corinth.  From  Paul's  Epistle  it  plainly  appears 
that  they  were  in  a  most  disorderly  state.  The  first  chapter 
shews  that  divisions  and  contentions  existed  among  them.  In  the 
third,  he  tells  tliem  they  were  yet  carnal^  and  in  proof  of  it, 
mentions  that  "  envying,  and  strife,  and  divisions"  were  preva- 
lent in  their  church.  In  the  fourth,  we  are  informed  that  some 
were  **  puffed  up,"  and  the  Apostle  threatens  to  come  to  them 
with  a  rod,  Ji  crime  that  was  not  so  mucli  as  named  among  the 
lascivious  Gentiles  is  laid  to  tlieir  charge  in  the  fifth  chapter, 
and  instead  of  mourning  for  it  they  gloried  in  it,  for  which  the 
Apostle  rebukes  them.  In  the  next  they  are  accused  of  a  liti- 
gious disposition.  I  speak  it  to  your  shame,"  says  the  Apos- 
tle, **  brother  goetli  to  law  with  brother,  and  that  before  the  un- 
believers; now  tlierefore  there  is  utterly  a  fault  among  you,  be- 
cause ye  go  to  law  with  one  another" — **  Yc  do  wrong  and  de- 
fraud and  that  your  brethren.  Then  after  alluding  to  other  ubom- 
ihations  existing  amongst  tlicm,  the  Apostle  refers  to  their  man- 


tier  of  using  bread  and  wine  as  a  religimis  ceremony,  and  this  is 
tlie  only  case  of  the  kind,  recorded  of  the  professors  of  Christian- 
ity in  the  whole  New  Testament. 

It  appears  then  that  these  contentious,  immoral,  litigians,  frau- 
dulent, carnal  Corinthians  were  some  how  in  the  habit  of  eating 
bread  and  drinking  wine  as  a  religious  ceremony.  Their  man- 
ner of  doing  it  furnishes  the  Apostle  with  a  topic  of  censure,  and 
he  rebukes  them  for  it  in  a  strain  of  severity,  little  usual  with 
him,  I  w  ill  quote  his  words  as  they  give  us  a  striking  memento 
of  the  degenerate  state  of  the  Corinthian  church.  **  Now  in  tliis 
I  declare  unto  you,  I  praise  you  not,  that  you  come  together,  not 
Jor  the  better  but  for  the  worse.  For  first  of  all,  when  ye  come 
together  in  the  cliurc!  ,  I  hear  that  there  be  divisions  among  you, 
and  1  partly  believe  it:  for  there  must  also  be  heresies  ammg  you, 
that  they  which  are  api)roved  may  be  manifest  among  you. 
When  ye  come  together,  therefore,  into  one  place,  tliis  is  not  to 
eat  the  Lord's  supper,  for  in  eating  everyone  taketh  before  other 
his  own  supper  and  one  is  hungry  and  anotlier  is  drunken — 
What!  have  ye  not  houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in,  or  despise  ye 
the  church  of  God,  and  shame  them  that  have  not  f  What  shall 
1  say  to  you  ?  Sliall  I  praise  you  in  this  I  I  praise  you  not. 

But  it  is  said,  tliat  **  it  was  tlie  abuse  of  this  ceremony  that  the 
Apostle  reproved  :  his  directions  afterw  ards,  how  to  use  it  right- 
ly, proves  that  he  did  not  mean  they  should  lay  it  aside."  I 
grant  he  did  not — this  same  Apostle  in  condescension  to  the  pre- 
judices of  the  early  cliristians  and  regarding  their  low  state  in 
the  experience  of  vital  Christianity  suftered  tiiem  to  use  the  car- 
nal ordinances  of  Moses,  w  hich  w  ere  abolisiied  by  Christ,  long 
before,  and  in  this  case  of  the  Corinthians,  he  manifested  tlie 
same  indulgence  until  they  should  be  further  enlightened  to  re- 
ceive the  Gospel  in  its  divine  purity.  In  this  very  Epistle  he 
gives  us  a  strong  reason  for  his  condescension. 

"  And  I  brethren,"  says  he,  *'  could  not  speak  unto  you  as 
unto  spintual,  but  as  unto  carnal,  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ. 
I  have  fed  you  with  milk  and  not  rvith  meat,  for  hitlierto  ye  were 
not  able  to  bear  it,  neither  yet  are  ye  norv  able,  for  ye  are  yet  car- 
nal,"   1  Cor.  iii.  1,  2,  3. 

Is  it  not  a  pity  that  those  who  contend  for  the  use  of  bread  and 
wine,  as  ^.religious  rite,  should  have  no  better  example  in  all  the 
scriptures,  than  the  Jewish  **feastof  the  Passover,"  and  the  prac- 
tice of  these  carnal  Corinthians  ?  the  most  distracted,  conten- 
tious, immoral  church  then  existing  in  all  Christendom.*  Yet 
so  it  is,  rather  than  lay  aside  the  use  of  this  carnal  ordinance 

*  For  a  further,  illustration  of  this  fact,  let  my  readers  consult  "a  Paraphrase 
the  Bpistles  of  St.  Paul,"  b>  the  celebiateU  John  Locke. 


09 


which  was  never  practised  by  the  Jlpesiles,  they  will  plead  the 
ubservance  of  it  fro  n  tiie  uiost  objectionable  exa.nples. 

My  seconil  position,  that  this  cercinony  *•  never  was  practised 
by  the  Apostles,"  is  I  think  clearly  proved.  In  my  next  nam- 
be*',  1  intend  to  shew  **tiiat  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the 
gospel  dispensation. 

AMICUS. 

Seventh'day^  Zth  Mo.  ii,  leui. 

LETTER  IX. 

The  third  position  stated  in  my  first  Essay,  on  the  subject  of 
*'The  Eucharist,"  comes  now  to  be  proved.  In  my  last  I 
shewed  by  plain  scripture  testimony,  that  the  Apostles  never 
used  bread  and  wine  as  a  **  religimis  ceremony/^  I  now  propose 
to  sliew  from  the  same  autliority,  that  tlie  use  of  these  symbols 
as  a  religious  rite,  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. 

In  Older  to  illustrate  my  subject,  I  will  first  give  my  views  of 
the  nature  of  tlie  Law  as  a  dispensation  of  God  to  the  children  of 
Israel.  In  the  next,  I  will  endeavour  to  give  a  scriptural  de- 
scription of  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  conclude  with  some 
general  observations  on  the  whole  subject. 

Jlnd  First.  The  Laws  of  Moses  were  an  outward  code,  a  set  of 
external  rules  for  the  government  of  tlie  Israelites  in  religion, 
morals  and  civil  life.  They  were  adapted  in  divine  wisdom  to 
the  state  of  a  dark  and  benighted  people.  They  were  intended 
gradually  to  lead  them  from  a  state  of  gross  superstition  and 
idolatry  to  the  worship  of  the  one  true  God.  For  this  pur- 
pose various  outward  ordinances  were  instituted,  all  having  a 
typical  meaning,  and  pointing  with  clearness  to  the  great  anti- 
type, in  whom  all  these  figures  finally  had  their  accomplish- 
ment;  in  short,  they  pointed  to  Christ,"  who  is  "the  end 
of  tlie  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth," 
Rom.  X.  4.    This  code  of  laws,  or  as  it  is  emphatically  termed 

the  Law,*^  pi'escribed  timeSf  places  and  external  ntes  in  and 
through  wliich  tlieir  worship  was  to  be  performed.  Their  tem- 
ple had  an  outward  glory — a  worldly  sanctuary — its  ordinances 
of  divine  service — its  tabernacle  wherein  was  the  candlestick  and 
the  table  and  the  shew  bread,  and  after  the  second  veil  the  taber- 
nacle,  which  was  called  the  holiest  of  all,  and  over  it  the  cheru" 
bims  of  glory,  shadowing  the  mercy  seat,  "which"  saith  the 
Apostle,  ileb.  ix.  9.  ^c.  *'  wars  a  figure  for  the  time  then  present 
in  which  was  offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  could  not 


70 


make  him  who  did  the  service  perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the  coui- 
science — which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wash- 
ings and  carnal  ordinances,  imposed  on  them  until  the  timeof  rer 
formation. 

Now  this  first  covenant"  as  the  Apostle  terms  it,  (how  glo- 
rious soever  in  its  season)  was  defective  in  the  most  important 
point.  It  was  an  external  rule  of  actioii.  Although  instituted 
by  divine  authority,  and  attested  hy  the  most  awful  sanctions,  it 
had  not  that  internaU  efficient  energy  which  is  necessary  to  pro- 
duce a  radical  change  of  character.  A  man  might  live  blame- 
less concerning  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  Phil.  iii.  6.  and 
yet  be  a  mad  persecutoi*  of  good  men — be  destitute  of  charity  or 
Gompassion  for  the  innocent  dissenter  from  his  own  creed,  see 
Acts  xxxvi.  11.  Now  this  defect  of  the  Mosaic  code  is  not  to 
be  attributed  to  any  oversight  or  imperfection  in  the  Law  Giver 
— it  is  a  defect  which  in  the  very  nature  of  things  is  attached  to 
ercery  external  code  of  laws,  let  them  be  derived  from  what  source 
they  may ;  it  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  all  outward  ordinances. 
Christ  the  divine  author  of  our  religion,  '*in  whom  were  hid  all 
the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,"  Col.  ii.  3,  who  per- 
fectly knew  the  weakness  and  inefficiency  of  every  external  sys- 
tem of  religion,  did  not  come  into  the  world  to  abolish  the  cere- 
monial laws  of  the  Jewish  Legislator,  in  order  to  institute  a  new 
set  of  outward  ceremonies  in  their  stea  .  He  did  not  come  to 
blot  out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances,^'  Col.  ii.  13,  which 
were  weak  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience,  and  to  substitute 
others  equally  impotent  in  their  room.  Neither  did  he  find  fault 
with  the  first  covenant,  because  its  "  meats  and  drinks  and  di- 
vers washings  and  carnal  ordinances"  were  not  significant  fig- 
ures of  heavenly  things  : — The  sacrifices  under  the  law,  the 
sprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  various  legal  purifications  Avere  far 
more  lively  emblems  of  the  death  of  Christ,  and  pointed  more 
distinctly  to  the  means  of  salvation  under  the  new  covenant, 
than  the  use  of  bread  and  wine,  can  possible  do.  Let  the  veil 
of  prejudice  be  effectually  drawn  aside,  and  all  must  see  and  ac- 
knowledge that  the  struggling  dying  lamb,  its  streaming  blood, 
tlie  altar  prepared  for  tlie  sacrifices,  with  all  the  solemn  accom- 
paniments of  the  occasion,  are  far  more  striking  symbols  of  our 
Lord's  death,  and  would  make  a  much  deeper  impression  on  the 
spectators  of  such  a  scene,  than  the  ceremonies  of  the  Eu- 
charist." 

Secondly.  I  will  now  attempt  to  shew  from  scri})ture  author- 
ity, that  the  gospel  dispensation  was  intended  to  remedy  the  de- 
ficiency of  the  dispensation  which  preceded  it,  by  introducing  a 
poTverful,  internal,  efficient  rule  of  action,  perfectly  adapted  to  the 
lowest,  as  well  as  the  highest  intellectual  capacities,  equally 
suited  to  all  ages  and  to  every  people  under  heaven. 


71 


For  this  purpose,  I  will  introduce  to  the  attention  of  my  rea- 
der, that  passage  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where  with 
inspired  energy  and  clearness,  he  describes  to  tlie  Jews  the  dif- 
ference between  the  old  and  new  covenants.  S])eaking  of  our 
Lord,  the  Apostle  says,  chap.  viii.  *'  He  is  the  mediator  of  a 
better  covenant,  which  was  established  upon  better  promises 
(than  that  of  the  law.)  For  if  that /rsf  covenant  had  been  found 
faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for  the  second. 
But  finding  fault  with  them,  he  saith.  Behold  the  days  come  saith 
the  Lord,  when  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah  :  not  according  to  the  cove- 
nant  I  made  with  their  Fathers  in  the  day  when  1  took  them  by 
tlie  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  because  they 
continued  not  in  my  covenant,  and  I  regarded  them  not,  saith 
the  Lord.  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  piit  my 
laws  INTO  THEIR  MIND  and  xvrite  them  ix  their  hearts  : 
And  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people. 
And  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every 
man  his  brother,  saying,  know  ye  the  Lord,  for  all  shall  know 
me  from  the  least  to  the  greatest 

Here  the  Apostle  quoting  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  xxxi.  31, 
32,  33,  34,  not  only  tells  the  Hebrews  that  the  new  covenant 
was  not  to  be  according  to  the  covenant  made  with  their  Fathei^^ 
which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings  and 
carnal  ordinances^  imposed  on  them  till  the  time  of  reformation." 
See  Heb.  ix.  9.  but  he  shows  what  was  to  be  the  nature  of  this 
new  covenant — a  law  wntten  in  the  mind  and  in  the  heart — a  law 
by  which  all  should  know  him  from  the  least  to  the  greatest, — in 
fine,  a  spiritual  covenant — the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  could  cori*oborate  this  view  of  the  subject  by  a  very  numer- 
ous collection  of  scripture  authorities,  but  desiring  to  be  brief, 
I  will  only  bring  to  the  attention  of  my  readers  a  few  texts, 
which  I  apprehend  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that  it  is  not  to  car- 
nal ordinances  the  christian  is  indebted  for  any  gospel  benefit,  but 
that  the  true  memorial  of  our  Lord  as  well  as  every  other  spiritu- 
al blessing  is  the  product  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul. 

•*  To  this  efficient  cause  (says  a  remarkably  lucid  wTiter  of 
the  last  century)  all  the  good  that  is  done,  all  the  virtue  that 
is  wrought  in  the  church  in  general,  or  in  any  of  its  members," 
is  to  be  ascribed. 

The  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  shall  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  John  xvi.  13. 
The  letter  killcth  but  the  Spirit  givdh  life,  2  Cor.  iii.  6.  By 
one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 
But  ye  are  ivashed^hut  ye  are  sanctified — but  ye  are  justified  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God, 


7£ 

1  Cor.  Ti.  11.  The  law  of  the  Spikit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus, 
hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death,  Rom.  viii.  2, 
If  ye  through  the  Spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body,  ye 
shall  live ;  for  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God  tliey 
are  the  sons  of  God,  and  if  children  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and 
joint  heirs  with  Christ,"  Rom.  viii.  13,  14,  17. 

Thus  we  see  that  under  the  glorious  gospel  dispensation,  it  is 
to  this  Divine  Spirit  that  the  soul  of  man  is  indebted  for  every 
christian  grace.  It  is  the  remembrancer— the  teacher — the  guide 
— the  baptizer — the  purifier — the  sanctifer — the  justifier, — It 
makes  free  from  sin — it  mortifies  the  deeds  of  the  bodij — it  gives 
life  to  the  soul,  makes  us  children  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with 
Christ  in  his  kingdom  of  divine  glory. 

He  therefore,  who  has  known  a  conversion  from  sin,  and  has 
been  made  a  partaker  of  this  Holy  Spirit,  and  afterwards  goes 
into  the  ceremonial  observance  of  carnal  ordinances  turns  back 
from  the  new  into  the  nature  of  the  old  covenant  and  falls  direct- 
ly under  the  Apostolic  rebuke.  Gal.  iv.  9  :  **  But  now  after  ♦that 
ye  have  known  God,  or  rather  are  known  of  God,  how  turn  ye 
again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements  whereunto  ye  again  de- 
sire to  be  in  bondage  ?  Ye  observe  days  and  months  and  tivies 
and  years.  **  I  am  afraid  of  you  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you 
labour  in  vain."  *'  Wherefore,  if  ye  be  dead  with  Clirist  from 
the  rudiments  of  the  world,  why  as  though  living  in  the  world 
are  ye  subject  to  ordinances  after  the  commandments  and  doc- 
trines of  men.  **  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not — which  all  are 
to  perish  with  the  using,"  Col.  ii.  20,  21,  22. 

How  they  who  toiich,  taste,  and  handle,  the  elementary  bread 
and  wine,  both  of  which  perish  with  the  using — how  they  who 
call  it  an  ordinance  and  oh^evYe  it  daily  or  monthly  or  yearly,  can 
avoid  the  rebuke  of  the  Apostle,  I  know  not ;  but  let  any  of  lay 
readers  who  are  seriously  seeking  after  the  truth,  as  it  relates  to 
this  subject,  turn  to  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  and  the  second  chapter  of  that  to  tlie  Colossians,  and  I 
think  he  will  clearly  perceive  that  the  Apostle  and  our  opponents 
are  not  of  the  same  mind. 

There  is  hardly  a  weaker  argument  advanced  to  support  the 
observance  of  the  Eucharist,"  than  its  importance  as  a  memo- 
rial  of  our  Lord.  *' He"  saith  the  Apostle  1  Cor.  vi.  17.  **that 
is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  Spirit."  The  union  of  the  soul  and 
body  is  not  more  intimate  than  the  soul  of  the  real  cliristian  is 
with  Christ.  The  branch  of  the  vine  is  not  more  closely  unit- 
ed to  its  parent  stem,  the  arm  is  not  connected  with  the  body  in 
a  more  vital  union,  than  the  member  of  Christ  is  with  tlie  head 
of  the  church. — A  woman  may  more  easily  forget  her  sucking 
child,  a  man  more  easily  forget  himself,  than  the  truly  spiritual 


73 


cliri:itian  can  forget  the  fountain  of  his  happiness,  the  spring  of 
his  purest  delights.  It  argues  a  very  low  state  of  religious  ex- 
perience, to  say,  that  a  monthly  memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ 
is  a  necessary  memento  to  a  true  heliever.  Carnal  ordinances  may 
suit  a  carnal  state.  He  that  uses  bread  and  wine  as  a  mt morial 
of  our  Lord,  tells  us  how  easily  he  can  forget  the  hand  that  feeds 
him,  how  weak  arc  his  recollections  of  him  who  is  a  perpetual 
stream  of  bounty  and  goodness,  who  gives  fertility  to  the  earth, 
and  happiness  to  the  devoted  soul. 

Meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings  and  carnal  ordinan- 
ces'* were  only  to  continue  till  the  time  of  reformation — this  time 
of  reformation  was  the  institution  of  the  iiew  covenant  dispen- 
sation.— Tlie  arguments  in  favour  of  outward  ordinances,  drawn 
from  the  practice  of  some  of  the  believers  in  tlie  early  periods 
of  the  christian  church  are  very  weak — the  work  of  reformation 
is  not  always  sudden ;  it  is  generally  gradual,  tlie  man  whose 
eyes  our  Lord  opened,  at  first  saw  men  as  trees  walking,  Mark 
viii.  24.  Many  of  tlie  early  conAertsto  Christianity,  both  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  had  from  their  infancy  been  taught  to  reverence 
the  forms  of  exterior  worship.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  they 
could  instantaneously  abandon  them.  Wc  are  not  to  expect  the 
meridian  splendor  of  the  gospel  sun  when  it  first  emerges  from 
the  misty  horizon  of  types  and  shadows  ;  but  as  the  evangelical 
morning  advanced,  theii*  views  of  divine  truth,  became  clearer 
and  clearer — spiritual  objects  more  and  more  distinct,  and  the 
new  and  living  way,  which  is  through  tlie  veil,  was  at  length 
})lainly  marked  out :  so  tliat  thirty  years  after  the  conversion  of 
the  Apostle  Paul,  we  find  him  in  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Hebrews,  de- 
lineating as  with  a  pencil  of  liglit  the  bo  mciary  line  between  the 
dispensation  of  carnal  ordinances  and  that  of  the  new  covenant, 
which  stands  wholly  independent  of  them  all  and  is  to  endure  to 
the  end  of  time. 

The  sub  ject  is  copious.  I  have  constantly  felt,  in  penning  my 
sentiments  on  it,  the  narrowness  of  my  limits,  but  iiaving  shown 
that  the  use  of  bread  and  wine  as  a  religions  act  was  never  insti- 
tuted by  Chiist — that  it  was  never  practised  by  the  Apostles ,  and 
that  it  is  contrary  to  the  natnre  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  I  will  for 
the  present  close  the  subject  with  the  expression  of  a  wish,  that 
the  enquirer  after  truth,  who  has  felt  sufficiently  interested  to  fol- 
low me  through  the  present  discussion,  would  at  his  leisure  take 
down  his  Bible  and  refer  to  the  passages  I  have  quoted,  where  I 
am  persuaded  he  will  find  much  interesting  matter,  further  il- 
lustrative of  the  subject,  and  which  1  have  neither  time  nor  room 
to  insert  in  my  Essays. 

I  intend  in  my  next,  to  give  some  of  my  views  on  the  subject 
af  the  scriptures.  AMICUS. 
10 


74 


Se-venth-day,  %th  Mo.  ii,  i84x. 

NOTES. 

Amicus-^  hi  liis  former  communication  for  the  Repository, 
j*as  distinctly  stated,  that  his  labours  in  the  present  discussion, 
are  principally  intended  for  the  information  of  the  sober,  can- 
did, enquirer.  To  his  readers  of  this  class  he  is  perfectly  wil- 
ling to  submit  tlie  question,  whether  he  has  **  insinuated"  any 
thing  of  an  "  ungenerous  nature  against  his  opponent.  Ami- 
cus" did  tliink,  and  he  does  still  think,  that  the  free  use  of  de- 
grading epithets,  gratuitously  applied  to  us,  and  unsupported  by 
reasonable  proof,  was  uncourteous."  If  our  adversaries  sin- 
cerely believe  tliat  we  are  Infidels"  or  Deists,"  let  them 
state  their  views  of  the  pnnciples  of  Deism^  and  then  shew  in 
what  res])ect  our  doctrines,  taken  from  our  acknowledged  writers, 
coincide  with  such  principles.  This  course  would  be  fair  and 
honourable,  and  the  public  after  hearing  both  parties  would  be 
able  to  decide  liow  far  such  epithets  were  applicable  to  us.  But 
instead  of  this,  our  opponent  seldom  puts  his  pen  to  paper  with- 
out leaving  it  stained  with  some  epitliet  calculated  to  defame  us. 
Only  last  week  after  acknowledging  his  obligation  to  suspect 
himself  of  some  error  on  this  head,"  aher  promising' '  to  be  more 
w  atchful  of  his  spirit,"  and  careful  of  his  language"  in  future, 
he  directly  falls  into  his  usual  course.  He  tells  us  that  he  and 
some  others  ''believe^''  that  **  Friendism"  (as  he  is  pleased  to 
term  our  principles,  (*'  is  a  specious  kind  of  Infidelity,  a  spurious 
kind  of  Cliristianity,  a  grait  of  Deism  upon  the  gospel  stock." 
Now,  is  this  fair  ?  is  it  candid  ?  is  it  the  legitimate  fruit  of  that 
heaven-born  charity  which  desires  the  highest  welfare  of  all 
mankind  ?"  To  say  nothing  of  charity,  is  it  common  justice  to 
lay  upon  us  charges  of  the  most  degrading  character,  upon  the 
slender  ground  of  a  beiicf."  Such  a  course  must  and  will  be 
reprobated  by  every  reader  wisose  opinions  are  entitled  to  re- 
spect. If  **  Amicus"  were  to  pursue  such  a  course  towards  his 
opponent,  the  society  whose  principles  he  advocates,  would  be 
amongst  the  first  to  condemn  his  conduct. 

In  the  13th  number  of  the  Repository  Amicus  courteously  ask- 
ed the  favour  to  be  permitted  to  occu])y  a  few  successive  num- 
bers, for  the  purpose  of  answering  charges  already  before  the 
public,  previous  to  the  exibition  of  any  others.  Tlie  Editor  in 
the  same  number,  declared  tliis  request  to  be  so  reasonable  that  it 
could  not  be  objected  to ;  and  in  the  succeeding  number, 
^'Paul"  acquiesced  in  the  proposition,  at  the  same  time,  ad- 
mitting that  the  request  w  as  reasonable.  After  all  this,  "  Ami- 
<'us"  is  charged  with  crowding    Paul"  out  of  Ais  place /I  What 

Paul's  place  is,  "  Amicus"  is  at  some  loss  to  understand.  Is 


75 


his  place,  under  a  digiiised  name,  to  attack  an  innocent  and  un- 
offending people,  and  w  eek  after  week,  to  load  thoin  with  oppi  o- 
brious  epitliets — to  hold  them  up  to  public  view  as  Infidels^  Athe- 
ists, Deists  and  spurious  Christians  ;  and  then  to  complain  be- 
cause tliey  ask  as  a  favour  what  was  obviously  a  natural  riglit, 
to  be  heard  befoiM?  any  fuither  matter  of  a  degrading  character 
should  be  presented  againstthemr  Ifthis  is '•Paul's*' ];/flce,  *'Ami- 
cns"  assures  him  that  he  has  no  wish  **  to  crowd  him  ouV^ — It  is 
such  a  -place  as    Amicus"  has  no  ambition  to  occupy. 

'•  Amicus"  will  close  this  note,  with  the  observation  that  lie 
has  no  wish  *•  to  fire"  at  **Paul,"  neither  has  he  any  **tort" 
but  truth  and  reason — tliat  to  make  such  remarks  as  are  con- 
tained in  this  note,  is  far  the  most  unpleasant  part  of  his  duty ; 
and  he  will  venture  to  express  a  hope,  tliat  in  future,  the  parties 
to  the  pi-esent  discussion,  may  evince  by  the  language  and  spi- 
rit of  their  respective  communications,  that  the  understand  the 
nature  of  that  blessed  religion  which  teacheth,  that  ••  though  we 
speak  with  the  tongue  of  men  or  angels,  and  have  not  charity  w  e 
ai*e  nothing.'* 


As  Paul  has  now  been  silent  for  six  successive  weeks — as 
Amicus  has  written  nine  numbers,  and  with  John,  eleven  num- 
bers to  his  seven: — as  he  has  written /our  on  Paul's  short  intro- 
duction, tivo  to  his  one  on  Baptism,  and  three  to  his  one  on  the 
Lord's  Supper;  and  as  Amicus  is  not  so  inferior  in  talents  as  to 
need  so  much  longer  time  than  Paul  to  express  his  sentiments  ; 
— Paul  is  not  aw  are  of  any  claim  Amicus  may  have  to  farther 
indulgence,  and  therefore  hopes  he  will  have  no  objection  to 
Paul's  appearing  next  w  eek. 

Zaiurday,  Aug.  i8,  I8ii. 

LETTER  MIL 

OBJECTIOXS  TO  BAPTISM  ANSWERED. 

*'  Go  teach  f  disciple  J  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  tlie  name  of 
the  Father,  tlie  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,''  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 
In  my  former  number  on  Baptism,  to  commence  the  discus- 
sion, I  introduced  only  two  arguments,  in  favour  of  our  prac- 
lice,  drawn  from  the  Command  of  Christ  and  the  Practice  of 
the  Apostles.  On  the  same  subject  I  have  many  more  aigu- 
inents  to  urge.  But  as  Amicus  has  in  the  mean  time  appeared 
with  man;,  plausible  objections  to  our  scheme  ;  before  pr?  cteding 
farther,  1  will  answer  him.    After  reading  and  studying  your 


76 


most  admired  wTiters  on  this  subject,  I  must  pronounce  this  Es- 
say of  Amicus,  the  most  able  and  ingenious  I  have  evei'  read; 
and  it*  it  were  possible  to  support  your  doctrines,  you  could  hard- 
ly commit  your  cause  to  safer  hands.  But,  until  mysticism  tri- 
umphs over  Scripture,  history,  and  common  sense,  all  attempts 
to  justify  your  doctrine  Avill  be  vam. 

John  the  Baptist,  (of  whom  you  make  so  much)  we  acknow- 
ledge to  have  been  the  morning  star  of  the  Gospel  dispensation. 
He  came  to  announce  the  speedy  rising  of  the  Sun  of  Righte- 
ousness. As  that  Sun  arose,  he  gradually  disappeared.  As 
Christ  increased,  he  decreased."  Baptism  with  water  was 
in  those  days,  the  necessary  badge  of  discipleship.  The  Jews 
had  used  it  with  their  Gentile  proselytes  ;  John  applied  it  to  his 
converts  :  and  when  Jesus  began  to  make  disciples,"  he  took 
the  same  course,  as  we  are  expressly  told  John  iii.  22,  26.  and 
iv.  1.  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the 
land  of  Judea :  and  there  he  tarried  with  them,  and  baptized. 
And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him.  Rabbi,  he  that  was 
with  tliee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold, 
the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  bim.  When,  therefore, 
the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees  had  beard  that  Jesus  made 
and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John."  These  passages  pi*ove 
that  if  he  did  not  baptize  himself,  he  ordered  it  to  be  done.  The 
baptism  which  he  used,  however,  was  John's  baptism,  adminis- 
tered not  in  the  name  of  the  Tnnity,  nor  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 
but  '*  in  the  name  of  Him  who  was  to  come."  John  instead  of  be- 
ing grieAed  that  Jesus  *  baptized  and  all  men  came  unto  him," 
(iii.  26.)  rejoiced,  as  does  tlie  friend 'of  the  bridegroom  when 
he  succeeds  in  procuring  for  the  bridegroom,  numerous  guests. 

"  From  the  whole  tenor  of  the  New  Testament,"  says  Ami- 
cus, two  kinds  of  baptism  are  distinctly  understood."  He 
might  have  said  four:  as,  1.  The  Baptism  of  ^afer.  2.  The 
Baptism  of  the  Spirit,  or  with  the  ordinary  influences  of  grace  ; 
a  baptism  given  to  every  saint  since  the  fall  of  Adam.  3.  The 
Baptism  of  Blood,  or  Suffering,  mentioned  Matt.  xx.  22.  *•  But 
Jesus  answered  and  said.  Ye  know  not  what  ye  ask.  Are  ye 
able  to  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  sliall  drink  of,  and  to  be  baptized 
with  the  baptism  that  I  am  baptized  with  ?  They  said  unto  him 
^e  are  able.  Mark  x.  38.  But  Jesus  said  unto  them.  Ye  know 
not  what  ye  ask  :  can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of  and 
be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  1  am  baptized  with  ?  Luke 
xii.  50.  But  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with  ;  how  am 
I  straightened  till  it  be  accomplished." — a  baptism  peculiar  to 
Christ  and  the  Martyrs  :  and,  4.  The  Baptism  of  Miraculous 
(rij^s,  commonly  called  in  Scripture,  tlie  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  or  "  fire  ^"  a  Baptism  never  bestowed  before  nor  since 


77 


the  (lays  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  this  last  to  which  John  the  Bap- 
tist pai-ticularly  alhules,  when  he  says,  "  I  indeed  baptize  witli 
water,  but  he  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,''^ 
For  John's  own  disciples,  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  were 
some  of  them  already  sincere  converts,  of  course  had  been  bap- 
tized with  the  common  baptism  of  the  spirit  ;  as  well  as  tliou- 
sands  o{'the  Old  Testament  saints.  The  Apostles  were  undoubt- 
edly Christians,  when  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection,  alluding 
to  this  very  passage,  says,  '*  John  indeed  baptized  you  with 
water,  but  ye  sJiall  he  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  lience."  Acts  i.  5.  The  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  here 
manifestly  refers  to  tlie  Miraculmis  Gifts,  bestowed  on  and  alter 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  When,  therefore,  John  says,  He  shall 
baptize  you  witli  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  no  more  sets  aside  the 
baptism  of  water,  than  the  baptism  of  blood,  or  the  common 
baptism  of  the  spint.  He  simply  means  to  say  **  Christ  shall 
bestow  upon  his  followers  an  Extraordinary  Injiuence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  He  did  not  mean  to  say,  that  Christ  sJionld  not  baptize 
with  water,  because  we  have  seen  already  tliat  he  did  baptize 
with  water.    John  iii.  22. 

But,  after  all,  what  if  Jolin  had  said  m  so  many  words,  that 
Christ,  would  not  baptize  with  water,"  (though  he  has  said 
no  such  thing,)  I  know  not  what  support  it  could  bring  to 
the  cause  of  Amicus,  since  he  has  set  aside  the  testimony  of 
the  inspired  Apostles  wlio  certainly  had  more  light  than  John. 
For  if  **  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  hea\  en,  is  greater  thaii 
John  the  Baptist,"  as  our  Lord  affirms,  I  cannot  see  why  he, 
an  individual,  should  be  always  infallibly  right,  and  they  a 
large  body  instructed  from  our  Lord's  own  lips,  and  gifted 
moreover  with  Inspiration,  should  be  unanimously  wrong ! 
Indeed,  I  do  think  Amicus  has  cut  himself  off  from  any 
farther  quotations  fi*om  the  preachers  or  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  He  has  decided  that  they  are  fallible  on  the 
plainest  points  !  He  has  taught  us  that  tliey  were  fallible 
through  tlie  greater  part  if  not  the  whole  of  their  lives  ;  and  if 
he  iiohls  that  they  became  infallible  before  they  died,  he  is  bound 
to  show  before  quoting  any  text,  that  this  text  was  written  after 
they  passed  the  line  of  fallibility  ! — Of  this  hereafter.  But 
whetlier  fallible  or  infallible,  John  gives  no  testimony  against, 
while  all  the  Apostles  and  early  preachers  and  early  Chris- 
tians, give  their  testimony  for  Water  Baptism. 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  what  he  says  on  the  subject  of  our 
Lord's  commission  or  command,  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  '*  Go  dis- 
ciple all  nations  baptizing  them,"  &c.  Amicus  denies  that  here 
is  any  pr<'cept  for  water  baptism.  Why  ?  because  I  myself 
have  admitted,  the  comraaml  w  as  "  not  express."    I  acknow- 


78 


ledge  my  %ords  are  capable  of  such  ^construction,  but  such  ^ 
thought  was  never  in  niy  heart.  I  did,  and  do  still  consider  the 
command  sufficiently  express.  You  must  acknowledge  "  it 
w  as  calculated  to  lead,"  as  it  did  lead  the  Apostles  to  water  bap- 
tism. I  spoke  of  ymir  admissions,  not  mine.  But  says  Amicus, 
again,  the  word  Water  is  not  used."  Such  an  objection,  if  I 
did  not  think  you  serious  in  offering  it,  I  would  pi'onounce  ridi- 
culous I  Suppose  our  Lord  had  said,  Go  dip  all  nations" — 
^'  immerse  all  nations" — *^  spnnkle  all  nations" — would  not 
common  sense  have  led  every  person  to  the  idea  of  water  ?  But 
the  word  water  is  not  mentioned.  Now  the  word  ''Baptize,'^ 
in  its  literal  and  ordinary  sense,  as  certainly  implies  water,  as 
either  of  the  expressions  abovementioned.  It  is  only  in  a  figu- 
rative and  uncommon  sense,  that  it  signifies  to  purify  or  cleanse. 
If  you  say  the  word  is  sometimes  used  for  spiritual  cleansing, 
so  is  the  word  circumcision,"  more  frequently  than  baptism, 
nsed  for  the  renewal  of  tlie  heart.  But  if  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  command  had  been  given  go  circumcise  all  nations," 
would  not  all  have  understood  it,  as  referring  to  an  outward 
ceremony  ?  • 

Again ;  our  Lord  says,  in  the  same  connexion,  Go  teacH  all 
nations,  go  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature."  Suppose  I 
should  turn  mystic,  and  object  that  neither  writing  nor  talking 
were  here  commanded,  but  that  the  gospel  should  be  preached 
by  silence  ?  w  ould  not  a  child  laugh  at  me,  and  tell  me  preach- 
ing implied  talking  and  wnting,  6cc.  So  we  say  of  the  word 
baptize.  Again ;  if  you  will  admit  nothing  but  what  is  express- 
ed in  so  many  letters,  here  is  nothing  said  about  the  spirit :  of 
course  Christ  did  not  command  to  baptize  with  the  spirit ! 

The  question  then  is  what  was  the  usual^  and  acknowledged 
sense  of  tlie  word  at  the  time  it  was  used  ?  In  its  literal  sense,  it 
always  referred  to  water.  This  all  the  Lexicons  in  the  world 
will  testify  ;  this  Amicus  himself  acknowledges,  when  he  says, 
it  not  only  refers  to  water,  but  to  a  particular  mode  of  using 
water,  to  wit,  immersion.  This  then  is  its  literal  sense.  Now, 
says  ^*  an  eminent  christian  and  scholar  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury," a    college  made  christian"  too,  in  his  Apology,  p.  446. 

It  is  a  maxim  yielded  to  by  all,  that  we  ought  not  to  go  from 
the  literal  signification  of  a  text,  unless  some  urgent  necessity 
forces  us  thereunto."  Now  I  ask,  what  "  urgent  necessity** 
forces  us  here  from  the  literal  sense?  Is  the  word  '* baptize" 
generally  used  in  scripture  in  a  figurative  sense?  This  you  will 
not  pretend.  The  word  in  its  various  forms  occurs  in  the  New 
Testament  about  80  times,  in  more  than  60  of  which  you  \\  ill 
not  deny,  if  }'0u  look  at  the  passages  by  a  Concon  ance,  that  it 
signifies  the  use  er  application  of  water.    Again ;  did  not  the 


79 


Jlimtles  understand  it  in  a  literal  sense  ?  If  not,  why  did  they  all, 
without  exception  practise  it  in  a  literal  sense  ?  Did  not  the  primi- 
live  chnstians  understand  it  in  a  literal  sense?  and  the  xvliole 
christian  wmid,  till  **  170  years  ago  ?" 

Amicus  is  pleased  to  say,  that,  in  the  latter  period  of  the 
church,  tlie  use  of  water  decreased."  But  where  is  his  proof? 
He  may  be  challenged  to  show  from  scripture  or  from  the  histo- 
ry of  the  first  fifteen  centuries,  that  a  single  individual  was  ever 
admitted  to  tfie  visible  christian  church  without  water  baptism.  If 
the  Apostles  had  inculcated,  in  their  latter  years,  the  abolition 
of  this  ordinance,  or  had  even  omitted  its  celebration,  among 
a  people  so  disposed  in  all  things  to  follow  the  example  of  the 
Apostles,  we  should  certainly  have  heard  of  some  churches  or 
individuals  objecting  to  this  ceremony.  That  Peter  ever  chang- 
ed his  mind  on  this  subject,  you  bring  only  one  text  to  prove; 
when  lie  says  that  the  baptism  which  saves  "  is  not  the  putting 
away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience." 
1  Pet.  iii.  31.  But  this  very  text  implies  that  the  word  baptism 
refers  to  water,  and  that  the  outward  rite  was  then  in  use ;  and 
only  declares  (what  we  all  believe)  that  water  baptism  will  not 
save  without  spiritual  baptism. 

That  Paul  changed  his  opinion  you  have  as  little  ground  to 
assert  from  1  Cor.  i.  14.  His  thanking  God  that  he  baptized 
only  a  few  of  the  Corinthians  does  not  prove  that  they  were  not 
baptized  by  others — by  Timothy,  Titus,  Silas  and  his  other 
companions.  Peter  might  have  said,  he  did  not  baptize  Corne- 
lius and  his  household,  for  he  only  *' commanded  them  to  be 
baptized"  by  his  attendants.    Acts.  x.  43. 

In  fact,  Paul  gives  us  three  reasons  for  his  conduct.  Not 
that  water  Baptism  was  wrong,  but,  1.  They  made  it  an  occa- 
sion of  party  Spirit,  (see  v.  12.)  2.  That  he  mi^ht  be  free  from 
the  suspicion  of  wishing  to  make  a  party  :  ^'lest  any  should  saij 
I  had  baptized  in  my  own  name'^  (15)  or  to  make  Paulites. 
3.  Because  he  had  a  more  important  business,  for  w  hich  he  w  as 
better  qualified  than  his  companions,  while  they  were  equally 
qualified  to  baptize.  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  preach 
the  gos|>el,"  i.  e.  I  view  this  as  my  principal  duty.  This  is  the 
simple  meaning  of  a  passage  of  which  you  make  so  much.  Take 
away  these  two  passages,  and  you  have  not  a  sentence  to  show 
that  these  Apostles  ever  changed  their  earliest  views.  We  know 
moreover,  that  Paul  and  Peter  left  tiieir  respective  regions  in 
the  use  of  this  ordinance.  We  know  also,  that  the  other  Apos- 
tles and  Evangelists  left  every  country  where  they  laboured, 
and  where  they  died^  in  the  use  of  water  baptism. 

In  short,  it  docs  not  apjiear  there  was  ever  a  doubt  on  the 
minds  of  the  Apostles,  Evangelists,  or  Preachers,  or  Christians 


80 


for  more  than  a  thousand  y^ars,  until  George  Fox  arose  and 
discovered  that  all  were  wrong! — Now,  Amicus  thinks  me  very 
presumptuous  for  saying,  our  Lord  knew  his  disciples  would 
understand  him  to  mean  water  baptism  — as  if  I  would  doubt 
his  omniscience ! 

Again ;  that  our  Lord  intended  literal  baptism  in  this  com- 
mand, is  evid.^nt  from  the  words  which  precede  and  follow  the 
word  "  baptize."  **  Go  teach  all  nations  baptizing  them,"  kc. 
It  is  well  Miown  to  all  acquainted  with  the  original  Greek,  that 
the  word  here  rendered  teach,"  literally  signifies  make  dis- 
ciples." When  therefore,  our  Lord  commanded,  "  Go  make 
disciples  baptizing  them,"  he  in  the  language  of  the  day,  des- 
cribed the  well  known  and  universal  mode  of  making  proselytes. 
As  if  he  had  said,  You  well  know  what  is  meant  by  making 
disciples,  and  the  manner  of  baptizing  them ;  I  therefore  without 
any  unnecessary  explanation,  tell  you.  Go  and  do  as  the  Jews 
are  in  the  habit  of  doing,  as  John  the  Baptist  did,  and  as  I  my- 
self have  done,  ( John  iv.  1.)  baptize  all  who  shall  profess  their 
repentance  and  faith,  and  thus  admit  them  to  the  number  of  my 
disciples."  If  our  Lord  had  intended  to  set  aside  the  old,  or 
point  out  some  new  way,  he  would  not  have  used  language  that 
Exactly  described  the  old  and  common  mode  of  making  disciples. 
The  only  nxrcelty  or  change  he  intended  to  introduce,  he  was 
careful  distinctly  to  express,  as  he  did  in  regard  to  the  J\*ame  ih 
which  they  were  to  baptize.  Had  he  said  nothing  on  this  sub- 
ject, they  would  have  used  the  old  form.  We  have  reason  to 
think,  he  changed  the  language,  just  so  far  as  he  wished  to 
change  the  thing,  and  no  farther.  And  as  he  changed  nothing 
but  the  name  in  which  they  were  to  baprtize,  we  have  no  right  to 
suppose  he  intended  they  should  make  any  alterations  in  the  mode 
of  baptizing. 

Once  more,  that  our  Lord,  in  this  command,  and  the  similar 
one,  Mark  xvi.  16.  intended  water  baptism,  is  evident  from  his 
omitting  to  make  it  essential  to  Salvation.  He  that  believetb 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  y  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall 
be  damned."  Now  I  ask  why  is  Baptism  omitted  in  the  lattei' 
clause.  If  our  Lord  meant  the  Baptism  of  the  Spint,  he  might 
have  inserted  it  with  perfect  safety,  since  it  is  certain  he  that  is 
not  baptized  with  the  spirit  will  be  lost.  But  if  he  was  speak- 
ing of  the  baptism  o^  water,  the  reason  of  its  omission  is  evident : 
— though  highly  important  as  a  profession  and  evidence  of  faith, 
it  is  not  essential  to  salvation.    Rom.  x.  9,  11. 

On  the  whole,  tlierefore,  from  the  /i^e?*a^  meaning  of  the  term  ; 
— from  its  usual  meaning  in  the  New  Testament; — from  the 
defirntion  of  all  Lexicographers ; — from  the  interpretation  and 
practice  of  the  Apostles ; — from  the  words  connected  with  it  by 


81 


our  Lord ; — from  its  being  a  baptism  not  essential  to  salvation  ; 
— and,  from  the  unanimous  understanding  of  the  w  hole  chri'^ti an 
church  for  more  than  a  thousand  years,  we  infer,  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  doubt  that  our  Lord  intended  to  enjoin  Water  Baptism. 

PAUL. 

Se'ventli-dajffSth  Mo.  25,  igir. 

LETTER  X. 

Ix  my  former  Essay  on  the  subject  of  Baptism,  the  great  lead- 
ing features  of  the  two  administrations  were  marked  out;  first, 
that  of  John  the  forerunner,  <*the  baptism  of  Water;"  and  se- 
condly, tliat  of  Christ  the  great  antitype  in  whom  all  the  sliadowy 
Ceremonies  of  former  dispensations  had  their  accomplishment, 
•*the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'*  In  tracing  the  outlines  of  the 
two  dispensations  I  endeavoured  to  shew  that  John's  baptism 
was  typical — elementary — carnal — Christ's  spiritual  and  (livine 
— John's  the  weak  unessential  baptism  of  water — Christ's  the 
powerful  essential  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  which  no 
man  can  ever  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Now  if  this  point  be 
established,  and  it  has  not  been  denied,  I  consider  the  strongest 
position  gained,  and,  as  the  successful  commander,  who  having 
captured  the  main  body  of  his  eneuiy's  army,  has  nothing  to  do 
but  pick  up  the  stragglers,  niy  only  business  is  to  answer  the 
little  arguments  founded  in  verbal  criticism  or  palpable  misun- 
derstanding. 

The  readers  of  "  Paul's"  last  address  to  us  must  have  ob- 
(M'wl  that  this  ground  remains  untouched  by  him — his  plea  for 
iirna!  ordinances  is  not  founded  on  their  conformity  to  the  na- 
ture of  the  Gospel  dispensation — this  he  well  knew  he  could  not 
sustain — he  knows  they  are  one  in  nature  with  the  meats  and 
tlrinks  and  divers  washings"  of  the  Mosaic  code,  and  equally 
impotent  in  their  operation  with  the  legal  pui  ifications  of  the 
law,  and  until  he  can  shew  that  the  law  of  a  carnal  Com- 
mandment" Is  to  supercede  the  power  of  an  endless  life,"  all 
attempts  to  justify  his  doctrine  upon  Evangelical  principles 
will  be  in  vain. 

**  As  '*Paul"  in  his  last  address  to  us  has  expressed  an  opin- 
ion, that  because  Amicus"  admits  the  fallibility  of  the  Apos- 
tles he  has  consequently  **cut  himself  oif  from  any  farther  quota- 
tions from  the  preachers  or  writers  of  the  New  Testament" — I 
think  it  proper  before  I  attempt  to  answer  his  objections  tiiat  I 
should  endeavour  to  remove  this  dilticulty.  **  Amicus"  would 
be  very  sorry  to  lose  the  advantage  of  Scripture  testimony  in 
11 


the  cause  he  has  espoused,  because  on  that  testimony  he  princi- 
pally relies  for  the  confii  mation  of  every  opinion  he  has  advanc- 
ed or  shall  advance  in  the  present  discussion. 

Now  I  freely  confess  that  I  never  had  an  idea  that  the  Apos- 
tles were  infallible,  and  I  give  Paul"  the  credit  of  being  the 
first  writer  who  ever  offered  such  a  sentiment  for  my  considera- 
tion. I  always  thought  that  they  were  men  of  like  passions  with 
us,  according  to  their  own  testimony,  Acts  xiv.  15.  I  had  no 
idea  that  like  the  Pope  of  Rome,  they  had  ever  pretended  to  be 
infallible,  I  remembered  that  when  the  Apostle  Paul  met  Peter  at 
Antioch  he  withstood  him  to  the  face  because  he  was  to  be  blam- 
ed— because  he  dissembled — because  he  walked  not  uprightly  ac- 
cording to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel — because  he  compelled  the  Gen- 
tiles to  live  as  do  the  Jews — see  Gal.  ii.  11, 13, 14. — I  remembered 
that  the  Apostles  Paul  and  James,  together  with  the  Church  at 
Jerusalem,  twenty  seven  years  after  Christ  had  abolished  the 
ceremonial  ordinances  of  Moses,  were  found  the  abettors  of 
those  ceremonies  :  see  Acts  xxi.  26. — I  remembered  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  two  of  our  Lord's  Apostles  had  so  .sharp  a  con- 
tention at  Antioch  that  they  could  no  longer  travel  together  in 
the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  :  See  Acts.  xv.  39.  From  all  these 
recollections  I  had  admitted  the  idea  that  the  Apostles  were  fal- 
lible men — ^men  of  like  passions  with  ourselves — having  the 
same  infirmities  with  their  brethren — liable  to  the  same  preju- 
dices, and  only  infallible  when  under  the  immediate  guidance  and 
instruction  of  the  Holy  Spirit — Nevertheless  I  cannot  understand 
why  such  an  opinion  must  invalidate  their  writings — because  I 
freely  admit  that  they  wrote  under  tlie  immediate  influence  of 
Divine  inspiration,  which  I  acknowledge  is  perfectly  infallible  in 
all  its  operations^ 

I  will  now  advert  to  the  arguments  used  by  Paul"  to  main- 
tain the  expediency  of  perpetuating  John's  Baptism — for  the  ne- 
cessity of  it  he  does  not  contend — he  grants  that  it  is  not  essen- 
tial to  salvation — so  that  the  whole  sum  of  all  his  arguments  td 
induce  us  to  be  sprinkled,  amounts  to  no  more  than  that  we  ought 
to  submit  to  an  unnecessary  form. 

Now  as  water  Baptism  is  confessedly  nonessential  in  its  nature, 
it  should  have  been  shewn  that  our  Lord  by  some  **  express 
Command"  enjoined  it  on  his  Church — this  our  0])ponent  has 
failed  to  do  and  ever  will  fail  to  do.  This  great  point  he  is  forc- 
ed to  rest  upon  the  ground  of  conjecture  ;  the  improbability  of 
which  I  will  now  attempt  to  demonstrate.  For  this  purpose  I 
will  quote  the  tv/o  cori'esponding  p»ssages  of  Matthew  xx\  iii. 
18,  19.  and  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  wherein  they  give  some  acccount 
of  the  last  interview  of  our  Lord  w  ith  his  disci])les  and  the  con- 
versation he  then  had  with  them.    These  passages  eminently  il- 


83 


lustrate  each  other,  and  establish  our  doctrine  beyond  the  rcacii 
of  a  doubt — Matthew  says,  ^*  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto 
them  saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth,  go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations  Baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  command- 
ed you,  and  lo  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  tlie  end  of  the 
w6rld.'* — Mark  says  And  he  said  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  be* 
lieveth  ami  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned." 

Now  it  is  evident  from  these  passages  that  the  Baptism  which 
Christ  commanded  was  a  Baptism  absolnfelij  essential  to  salva- 
tion— **  He  that  believeth  and  is  Baptized  shall  be  saved" — by  con- 
necting belief  and  Baptism  together  and  making  Salvation  to  de- 
pend equally  on  the  two,  he  plainly  declares  that  this  Baptism 
was  the  essential  saving  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit — Paul"  in 
commenting  on  this  passage  has  profanely  attempted  to  wrest 
a  plain  Scripture  text — to  put  asunder  what  God  has  joined — 
in  the  face  of  the  strongest  Scripture  language  he  has  declared 
that  our  Lord  **  omitted  to  make  the  Baptism  iiere  spoken  of  es- 
sential to  Salvation."  The  text  however  stands  firm,  an  unim- 
peachable >yitness,  whose  evidence  corresponds  with  tha  testi- 
mony of  holy  men  in  all  ages — with  the  experience  of  every  re- 
al Christian — that  they  and  only  they  who  believe  and  are  Bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Spirit  can  be  the  heirs  of  Salvation. 

In  answer  to  Paul's"  query  •*  Why  is  the  word  Baptism 
omitted  in  the  latter  clause"  of  the  16th  verse  above  quoted — 
i.  e.  **  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned" — I  answer,  for 
this  very  obvious  reason,  that  as  belief  must  precede  Baptism  by 
tlie  Holy  Spirit — so  he  that  docs  not  believe  cannot  be  bap- 
tized by  it,  and  consequently  damnation  fellows  upon  unbelief 
alone. 

There  is  one  circumstance  which  remains  to  be  noticed,  and 
which  goes  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  never  understood  our  Lord 
to  intend  that  they  should,  by  virtue  of  the  aforesaid  commis- 
sion. Baptize  their  converts  with  water.  In  all  the  cases  of 
Avater  Baptism  that  occurred  afterwards  there  is  not  a  single 
instance  of  any  one  being  Baptized  **  in  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now  if  the  Apostles 
had  understood  their  Lord  as  modern  Christians  do,  I  cannot 
conceive  how  they  dared  to  omit  so  important  a  part  of  the  Ce- 
i*emony.  This  view  of  the  case  brings  our  opponents  into  a  seri- 
ous dileinma — either  the  Apostles  did  not  understand  him  to 
mean  Water  Baptism,  or  else  they  disobeyed  the  positive  Com- 
mand of  their  Lord. 


84 


It  may  be  proper  in  this  place  to  notice  "  PauPs'*  ci'iticism 
on  t!ie  word  teach"  mentioned  in  tlie  text  I  have  quoted — I 
confess  I  Ijave  been  at  some  h)ss  to  understand  how  the  meaning 
he  would  give  it,  can  have  any  effect  to  strengthen  his  position, 
because  I  admit  that  men  must  become  disciples  in  the  school  of 
Christ  before  tht^y  are  prei)ared  to  receive  Spiritual  Baptism. 
Yet  in  order  to  shew  that  the  word  **  teach"  is  correctly  ren- 
dered in  the  present  translation  of  the  Bible  I  will  just  state, 
that  the  word  which  is  rendered  **teach"  in  the  imperative  mood, 
is  in  the  original  Greek  Jlatlieteusate^'  from  '*  Muthctuo'^' — in 
the  latin  **doceo" — to  teach — to  instruct — to  inform.  Both  this 
verb  and  the  noun  Jlath^tt  s^'  (discipulus)  are  derived  from 
the  primitive  verb  ^*  JTanthano^'  in  the  latin  **  disco"  **  intelli- 
go"  to  learn,  to  acquire  the  knowledge  of  tilings,  to  be  inform- 
ed of — to  understand — to  perceive,  to  know,  Paul"  traces  the 
verb  **  Matheteud^^  no  furtlier  tlian  to  the  noun  Jlathetes^^ 

disciple  :"  he  ought  to  have  gone  a  little  further  to  tlie  root  of 
Mathetes — to  Manthano,  and  then  he  would  have  discovered  that 
the  translators  of  the  Bible  had  rendered  the  word  Matheteiisate, 
coiTectly  **  Go  teach  all  nations" — so  that  all  his  verbal  cri- 
ticism in  tliis  case  seems  intended  only  to  veil  the  truth  from 
the  eye  of  his  reader — to  lead  him  from  the  plain  path  of  Scrip- 
ture doctrine  into  the  confused  labyrinth  of  scholatic  Divinity. 

I  shall  now  notice  some  of  **  Paul's"  assertions  which  I  con- 
sider unsupported  by  Scripture  testimony.  First — He  asserts 
that  as  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  arose  John  the  Baptist^j^-ra- 
dually  disappeared". — If  he  had  said  that  as  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion arose  the  dispensation  of  carnal  ordinances  gradually  disap- 
peared, he  would  have  taken  ground  which  he  might  have  de- 
fended by  Scripture — but  as  he  speaks  of  the  person  of  John  he 
manifestly  contradicts  the  plain  text,  for  John  the  Baptist  was 
suddenly  cut  off  by  Herod,  who  threw  him  into  prison  and  be- 
headed him  before  the  Gospel  dispensation  was  introduced,  as 
we  see  Matt.  xiv.  10.  so  that  John's  prediction  John  iii.  30. 
**He  (Christ)  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease,"  evidently 
refers  to  the  two  disj)ensations,  the  former  administered  by  our 
Lord,  the  latter  by  his  forerunnci-  John  the  Baptist.  The  dis- 
pensation of  the  Spirit  being  that  which  was  designed  to  rise  in 
its  own  native  splendor,  and  to  eclipse  the  comparatively  weak 
and  planetary  light  of  that  morning  Star  of  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation," 

Secondly — Paul"  asserts  that  we  "  make  much  of  John  the 
Baptist" — with  how  much  reason  he  asserts  that  we  make  much 
of  liim,  I  leave  my  readers  to  Judge — I  rather  think  that  this 
charge  lies  with  most  reason  against  those  who  plead  for  carnal 
ordinances  and  preach  up  his  watery  Baptism  as  a  binding  obli- 
gation on  the  members  of  Christ. 


85 


I'liirdly — He  asserts  contrary  to  the  positive  language  of  the 
Evangelist,  that  *'  wiien  Jesus  began  to  make  disciples  he  appli- 
ed water  Baptism  to  his  converts" — to  sup])oii;  this  assertion  he 
quotes  John  lii.  22,  26,  and  iv.  1.  which  only  go  to  prove  that 
our  Lord's  disciples  administered  Water  Baptism  :  but  he  omit- 
ted the  second  verse  of  the  fourth  Chapter  which  proves  express- 
ly that  Christ  took  no  part  in  the  performance  of  this  typical 
Ceremony.  Jesus  himself  Baptized  not,  but  his  disciples." 
And  as  soon  as  our  Lord  knew  that  the  Pharisees  had  heard  a 
false  report  **  that  Jesus  made  and  Baptised  more  disciples  than 
John,"  as  if  offended  at  the  scandalous  rumour  that  he  was  ad- 
ministering a  carnal  ordinance,  he  immediately  left  Judea  the 
scene  of  water  Baptism,  and  went  into  Galilee.  John  iv.  3. 

Fourthly — *'  Paul  knowing  the  assertion  he  had  made,  that 

Jesus  applied  water  Baptism  to  his  converts,  was  contrary  to 
the  positive  language  of  the  text,  directly  after  tacitly  admits 
the  error  of  his  own  statement,  by  saying  that  if  Christ  did 
not  Baptize  himself — he  ordered  it  to  be  done — Here  he  not  only 
admits  that  our  Lord  did  not  Baptize  himself — But  he  makes  a 
new  assertion  equally  unsupported  by  tlie  text — Where  is  his 
proof  that  Christ  ordered  it  to  be  done?"  not  in  the  Bible  I 
am  certain.  Now  as  this  position  rests  wholly  on  the  ipse  dixit 
evidence  of  my  opponent,  my  only  business  is  to  deny  it — The 
practice  of  the  disciples  in  this  case  no  more  infers  a  Com- 
mand, than  Peter's  denial  of  his  Lord  or  Judas's  treason  implies 
that  they  so  acted  in  conformity  with  a  divine  injunction. 

Fifthly — *•  Paul"  asserts  that  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
mentioned  Acts  i.  5.  is  the  Baptism  of  miraculous  Gifts — this 
is  a  kind  of  term  quite  novel — a  Baptism  of  Gifts  ! !  I  confess 
myself  at  some  loss  to  understand  this  language — it  agrees  with 
no  idea  of  Baptism  either  literal  or  spiritual  conveyed  in  the 
Sacred  volume.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  with  which  the  Apostles 
and  j)rimitive  Christians  were  Baptized  conferred  on  them  many 
miraculous  Gifts  is  very  evident,  but  this  Baptism  always  pre- 
ceded the  Gifts — they  were  Gifts  proceeding  from  that  divine 
power,  which  God  by  Spiritual  Baptism  had  communicated  to 
his  Children — "  Paul's"  attempt  to  distinguish  Baptism  into 
four  kinds  is  idle,  and  as  I  conceive  irreverent — The  Holy  Scrip- 
tures mention  but  two  kinds  of  Baptism,  the  Baptism  of  Water 
and  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit — the  effects  of  the  latter 
ivere  then,  and  always  have  been  vanmis — The  Apostle  beauti- 
fully exemplifies  this  truth  in  his  1st.  Epistle  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, Chap.  xii.  '*Now  there  are  diversities  of  Gifts,  but  the 
"same  Spirit — and  there  are  differences  of  adminivStrations,  but 
**  the  same  Lord,  and  there  are  diversities  of  operations,  but  it 

is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all  in  all— But  the  manifcsta- 


86 


"  tion  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal,  for  to 
*<oneis  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom — to  another 
the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit — to  anotiier  faith  by 
"the  same  Spirit — to  another  the  gifts  of  healing  hy  the  same 
Spirit — to  another  the  working  of  miracles,  to  another  prophe- 
cy^  to  another  discerning  of  Spirits f  to  another  divers  kinds  of 
^'tongues — to  another /Ae  interpretation  of  tongues — but  these 
worketh  that  one  and  the  self  same  Spirit,  "  dividing  to  every 
**man  severally  as  He  will.    For  as  the  body  is  one  and  hath 
*^many  members — and  all  the  members  of  that  one  body  being 
*^  many  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ — for  by  one  Spirit  we 
are  all  Baptized  into  one  Body  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free,  and  have  been  all  made  to 
drink  into  one  Spirit." — Here  the  Apostle  distinctly  mentions 
the  Gifts  of  the  Spirit  consequent  on  true  Gospel  Baptism,  and 
though  every  subject  of  this  Baptism  does  not  receive  all  these 
Gifts  as  a  consequent  of  being  thus  initiated  into  the  Church  of 
Christ,  yet  no  true  subject  of  this  Spiritual  Baptism  is  or  ever 
will  be  without  one  or  more  of  those  Gifts  mentioned  by  the 
Apostle. 

The  whole  of  "Paul's"  arguments  are  intended  to  prove  that 
a  Christian  ought  to  be  Baptized  with  two  Baptisms  contrary 
to  the  plain  language  of  the  x\postle,  Eph.  iv.  4,  5,  6.  There 
is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  Baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all." — Now 
**Paul"  can  as  easily  prove  that  a  Christian  should  acknow- 
ledge t%vo  God's,  have  two  Lords,  hold  two  faiths,  as  that  he 
should  submit  to  two  Baptisms. 

"  Amicus"  entirely  accords  with  thiit  eminent  Christian  and 
scholar  of  the  seventeenth  Century,  the  divinely  illuminated 
Robert  Barclay  (not  a  College  made  Christian,  inasmuch  as  he 
became  a  Christian  long  after  he  left  College)  ^*  that  we  ought 
not  to  go  from  the  literal  signification  of  a  text  unless  some  ur- 
gent necessity  forces  us  thereunto;"  and  sincerely  do  I  wish 
that  Paul"  would  remember  the  maxim — if  he  did  so,  I  cannot 
understand  why  he  should  be  so  zealous  in  contending  for  the 
administration  of  two  Baptisms,  whilst  he  acknowledges  that 
one  of  them  is  unnecessary,  and  consequently  he  is  not  forced  by 
any  urgent  necessity  to  depart  from  the  literal  meaning  of  the 
text,  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  Baptism. 

In  my  former  Essay  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  I  did  say  that 
in  the  latter  periods  of  the  Church  when  the  Apostles  had  fully 
experienced  the  inefficacy  of  Water  Baptism  and  the  powerful  na- 
ture of  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  the  use  of  water  decreased — by  the 
latter  periods  of  the  Church,  was  not  meant  the  latter  periods 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  of  the  primitive  Christian  Church 
as  described  in  the  New  Testament — I  know  very  well  tliat  af- 


tei*  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  when  the  civil  and  'ecclesiastical 
powers  were  blended  together,  when  the  Church  tlirough  this 
unhallowed  union  became  corrupt  and  lost  her  virgin  beauty, 
then  the  use  of  carnal  ordinances  increased,  mystery  Babylon  the 
mother  of  harlots  bewitched  her  with  her  sorceries,  and,  if  God 
in  his  mercy  had  not  preserved  a  little  remnant  who  could  not 
bow  in  the  synagogue  of  Satan,  who  could  not  worship  the  gor- 
geous but  distorted  image  of  Christianity  which  had  been  set 
up,  who  could  not  be  satisfied  with  empty  lifeless  form^and  typ- 
ical ceremonies,  the  Church  would  have  become  an  utter  deso- 
lation— but  in  divine  goodness  such  a  remnant  was  preserved 
through  a  long  dark  night  of  Apostacy,  until  the  dawn  of  Refor- 
mation, until  the  true  Church  was  distinctly  seen  "  coming  out 
of  the  wilderness  leaning  on  the  breast  of  her  beloved  which 
that  she  mav  continue  to  do  is  the  sincere  prayer  of, 

AMICUS, 


Saturday f  September  i,  1821. 

LETTER  IX. 

OBJECTIONS  TO  BAPTISM  ANSWERED. 

JV*ow  /  praise  you,  brethren,  that  ymi  rememhei'  me  in  all  things, 
and  keep  the  Ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  to  you,  1  Corin- 
thians xi.  2." 

The  principal  object  of  my  last  number,  was  to  show  that 
the  baptism  enjoined  in  our  Lord's  Commission,  (Mat.  xxviii. 
19.)  was  2L  literal  and  not  a  Jiguratire  baptism.  This  object 
Amicus  seems  almost  to  have  forgotten,  and  to  liavebeen  so  busy 
in  pursuit  of    stragglers,"  as  to  have  missed  tlie  main  araiy. 

There  is  such  a  difference  of  style  and  spirit,  such  a  manifest 
want  of  candour  and  common  justice  in  his  last  Number,  that  I 
can  hardly  think  Amicus  was  himself  when  he  wrote  it.  Every 
objection,  however,  worth  answering,  shall  be  noticed  in  due 
time.  At  present  I  shall  only  notice  the  two  objections  which 
he  offers  to  my  main  argument ;  the  fii'st  is  his  most  learned 
criticism  on  the  word  ^* Teach;"  and  the  second,  his  misuse  of 
Mark  xvi.  16. 

Instead  of  quoting  words  which  few^  can  understand  and  few- 
er still  can  criticise,  I  will  appeal  to  2l  plain  English  argument, 
drawn  fix>m  Authors  whose  learning  and  critical  abilities  no 
modest  man  will  question.  The  word  for  "  teach"  is  rendered 
by  Doddridge  *<  proselyte ;"  by  Pyle  and  Campbell,  **  con- 
vert;" by  Guise,  Scott  and  Henry,  disciple ;"  by  Parkburst, 
Wakefield  and  Gill,  «make  disciples;"  all  words  of  similar 


sa 


import,  denoting  (as  it  is  expressed  in  the  Persic  Version) 

bring  all  nations  to  my  religion  and  faith."  And,  if  you  wish 
farther  authority,  your  own  Clarkson,  (II.  318.)  says,  '*the 
word  *  teach,'  is  an  improper  translation  of  the  original  Greek. 
The  Greek  word  should  have  been  rendered  ''make  disciples  or 
proselytes  So  much  for  his  Greek !  Let  the  public  judge,  who 
wished  to  ''  veil  the  truth  from  their  eyes."  My  former  argu- 
ment, therefore,  remains  in  full  force. 

To  illustrate  Mark  xvi.  16.  a  text  which  Amicus  says  I  ''pro- 
fanely attempt  to  wrest,"  I  need  add  but  few  words.  Suppose 
Amicus  should  say,  "  He  that  believeth  all  the  doctrines  I  teach, 
and  publicly  professeth  them,  is  a  good  Friend  and  a  good 
Christian."  He  would  make  this  belief  and  profession  an  evi- 
dence of  Friendism  and  Christianity ;  but  would  not  exclude 
others  who  might  not  believe  exactly  as  he  does,  or  who  might 
not  as  publicly  profess  the  same,  from  being  real  Friends  and 
Christians.  But  should  he  say,  "  He  that  believeth  not,  or 
doth  not  profess  all  the  doctrines  I  teach,  is  neither  a  Friend 
nor  a  Christian ;"  he  would  make  the  thing  required  essential. 
In  like  manner,  I  might  say  "He  who  joins  the  Friends'  Socie- 
ty, is  sure  to  get  rich  and  this  be  a  very  different  thing  from 
saying,  "  none  but  those  who  join  your  Society  will  ever  get 
rich."  In  the  former  I  should  simply  recommend  one  means  of 
getting  rich,  in  the  latter  name  what  was  essential  to  riclies. 
Thus  our  Saviour,  wiien  he  said,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved,"  only  pointed  out  means  of  Salvation. 
But  when  he  said,  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  he 
made  ftiith  and  faith  alone  essential.  As  the  Baptism  therefore, 
of  which  he  speaks,  is  only  a  means  of  grace,  and  not  essential 
to  salvation,  we  infer  he  intended  ^fafe;- Baptism. 

Having  confirmed  my  First,  I  now  proceed  to  confirm  my  Se- 
cond Argument,  di^awn  from  Apostolic  Practice ;  after  wliich, 
I  will  answer  a  few  of  your  objections,  and  conclude  the  discus- 
sion with  farther  proof  of  the  propriety  of  W  ater  Baptism. 

That  the  Apostles  practised  water  baptism,  is  too  plain  to  be 
denied.  Amicus,  quibbling  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  says  tlicre 
are  no  instances  of  theii'  "  applying  water  to  their  converts," 
but  "  several  instances  of  their  applying  their  converts  to  the 
water."  Whether  the  twelve  Apostles  spent  the  whole  day  of 
Pentecost  in  "  ajiplying"  tlieir  three  thousand  converts  "  to  the 
water,"  or  a  small  part  of  it  in,  "  applying  water"  to  their  con- 
verts is  of  little  moment;  the  fact,  however,  that  the  whole 
BODY  of  the  Apostles  at  this  time  baptized  with  water,  was  never 
(Contradicted.  The  fact  tliat  the  Samaritans,  "  both  men  and 
woiiien  were  baptized,"  when  '*as  yet  the  Holij  Ghost  had  fallen 
on  none  of  them,"  proves  that  they  were  baptized  with  water. 


r 


89 


(Acts  viii.  12.  16.)  The  cases  of  the  Eunuch,  (Acts  viii.  38.) 
of  Cornelius,  (x.  47.)  of  Saul,  (ix.  18.)  of  Lvdia  and  her  house- 
hold, and  the  Jailor  and  his  household,  (x\cts  xvi.  15.  38.)  with 
the  rebaptism  of  John's  disciples,  (xix.  5.)  are  all  equally  in 
point ;  and  show  the  construction  which  the  Apostles  put  upon 
our  Lord's  command — the  difference  they  made  hetween  his  and 
John's  haptism — tlieir  opinion  of  the  propriety  of  water  haptism 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  their  belief  that  it  was  not 
*<uperseded  by  the  haptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

I  have  before  shown  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  Scriptui'e  op 
in  history,  that  they  ever  changed  their  views  or  practice.  And 
I  again  defy  Amicus,  to  show  that  a  single  Apostle  ever  c/mnged 
his  mind — or  that  a  single  individual  was  added  to  the  churchf  in 
the  days  of  tlie  Apostles,  -without  water  baptism.  Here  then  are 
the  twelve  Apostles  sent  forth  to  preach  the  gospel,  found 
churches  and  deliver  ordinances,  all  practising  Water  Baptism. 
This  example  of  the  inspired  Apostles  has  a  powerful  influence 
on  tlie  minds  of  Christians  in  general,  but  with  Amicus,  and 
you,  it  passes  for  nought ! 

Says  Amicus,  they  were  fallible,  they  "  offered  sacrifices,'* 
circumcised  their  converts,"  *'  compelled  them  to  live  as  do 
the  Jews,"  *•  kept  the  Xazarite's  vow,  &c."  and  therefore  their 
conduct  is  no  **uifallible  criterion"  of  truth.  This  bold  attack 
upon  the  Apostles  is  as  unjustifiable  as  it  is  presumptuous.  Let 
us  examine  this  point,  and  it  will  be  found  that  all  these  charges 
nre  unfounded,  I  can  hardly  think  Amicus  intended  it,  but  here 
is  a  serious  blow  at  inspiration  !  That  the  Apostles,  as  men  were 
imperfect  and  liable,  like  all  christians,  to  occasional  inconsist-^ 
encies  of  conduct,  all  must  admit;  but  to  suppose  for  a  moment 
that  they  were  wrong  in  theii'  habitual  conduct,  or  fallible  as 
Teachers  of  Doctrines,  and  inculcators  of  Ordinances,  is  to 
loose  the  sheet  anchor  of  our  confidence,  and  set  us  adrift  on  an 
ocean  of  uncertainty.  If  they  habitually  erred  in  one  particu- 
lar, why  not  in  a  thousand — why  not  in  all?  It  is  well  remarked 
by  a  writer  on  Inspiration,  ^*iL  partial  inspiration  is,  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  iw  inspiration  at  all.  For  mankind  would 
be  as  much  embarrassed  to  know  what  was  inspired^  and  what 
w  as  not,  as  to  collect  a  religion  for  themselves.  The  consequence 
of  which  would  be,  that  we  are  left  just  where  we  were,  and 
that  God  put  himself  to  a  great  expense  of  miracles  to  effect  noth- 
ing at  all !"  The  Apostles  left  to  teach  error  !  You  must  forgive 
me,  but  really  I  cannot  but  view  this  as  another  proof  of  the  deis- 
tical  tendency  of  your  sentiments.  Tliey  taught  so  error  either 
in  their  writings,  their  preacijixct  or  rKACTicE,  i.  e.  taking 
th  ese  as  a  whole,  looking  not  so  much  at  insulated  particulars,  as 
at  their  general  tenor, 

152 


9.0 


That  the  Apostles  should  not  at  once  think  of  carrying  tlie 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  is  not  wonderful  when  we  consider  the 
many  millions  of  their  own  brethren  wlio  were  strangers  to 
Christ — when  we  consider  also  our  Lord's  previous  charge,  **  go 
not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samar- 
itans enter  ye  not,"  and  after  his  resurrection,  *^  begin  at  Jeru- 
salem." (Luke  xxiv.  47.)  Their  error,  (if  indeed  they  were 
in  an  error,  and  did  not  act  just  as  our  Lord  wished  them  to 
act,)  was  soon  and  forever  corrected.  There  is  not  any  truth 
of  which  they  have  left  a  more  unequivocal  testimony ^  on  the 
whole,  than  the  propriety  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. 

^*They  practised  circumcision,'^  says  Amicus.  Not  so. 
However,  this  rite  may  have  been  observed  by  some  of  the  Jew- 
ish converts f  it  was  never  enjoined  by  the  Apostles,  nor  recom- 
mended to  any  part  of  the  church.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
they  were  in  any  error  on  this  subject. 

As  to  the  debate  held  by  the  Apostles,  whether  all  the  church 
should  submit  to  circumcision,"  of  which  he  speaks,  no  such 
thing  appears.  At  least,  whatever  some  uninspired  converts 
might  have  thought,  among  the  inspired  Apostles,  there  appears 
to  have  been  but  one  opinion,  and  that  unfavourable  to  circumci- 
sion. (Let  the  reader  refer  to  Acts  xv.)  Some  of  the  Jewish 
converts  taught  except  ye  be  circumcised,  ye  cannot  be  sav- 
ed,"— with  whom  Paul  and  Barnabas  <*had  no  small  dissentioii 
and  disputation."  In  the  Council,  Peter  says,  why  put  ye  such 
a  yoke  upon  their  necks?"  James,  **  my  sentence  is  that  ye 
trouble  them  not,"  and  the  declaration  of  the  whole,  we  gave 
no  such  commandment,'^    Acts  xv.  1,  2,  10,  19,  24. 

Such  were  the  views  and  decisions  of  the  inspired  Apostles. 
"Where  then  was  tlieir  debate,  their  ignorance,  their  mistake,  their 
indulgence  of  the  people  in  carnal  ordinances!"  As  to  common 
Chi'istians,  they  w  ere  no  more  inspired  then,  than  christians  are 
now. 

Soon  after  this  council,  (Actsxvi.  3.)  with  the  above  decree  oi 
the  Apostles,  in  his  hand,  Paul  circumcised  Timothy." 
Why  ?  because  he  thouglit  it  binding  on  the  church  ?  Not  at  all ; 
but  as  Luke  says,  because  of  the  Jews."  He  acted  as  any 
missionary  among  the  Jews  at  the  present  day  might  act,  if  he 
thought  it  would  ingratiate  him  with  that  blinded  people.  This 
occasional  act,  is  certainly  a  very  different  tiling  from  preaching 
every  where,  ^*  Repent  and  be  circumcised  every  one  of  you,'* 
enjoining  the  rite,  as  he  did  baptism.  So  far  from  inculcating, 
he  every  whei'e  condemns  and  stigmatizes  it  as  ^  concision'  and 
not  circumcision.    Gal.  v.  3.    Pliil.  lii.  2. 

The  vow,  on  account  of  which  Paul  "  shaved  his  head  at 


^1 


Genchrca/'  (Acts  xviii.  18.)  might  have  been  the  Nazavitc's 
vow,  but  the  Scripture  docs  not  say  so.  Vows  are  proper  un- 
1  der  every  dispensation.  His  offering  sacrifices  at  Jerusalem, 
at  the  request  of  James,  {Acts  xxi.  26.)  any  reader  may  sec  was 
contrary  to  his  own  judgment  and  the  judgment  of  James,  and 
a  weak  compliance  w  ith  Jewish  prejudices.  As  touching  the 
Gentiles,"  says  James,  we  have  written  and  concluded  that 
they  observe  no  siich  thingJ^  {25,)  Let  it  be  remembered  too, 
that  this  was  a  single,  and  the  only  instance  of  sacrificing  dur- 
ing Paul's  whole  christian  life ;  which  his  general  opposition  to 
such  ceremonies,  and  his  whole  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  much 
outweigh,  as  a  mountain  outweighs  a  grain  of  sand. 

But,  says  Amicus,  the  Apostles  compelled  their  converts  to 
live  as  do  the  Jews,"  referring  to  Gal.  ii.  11,  12.  The  Apos- 
tles as  a  body  never  did  ;  no  individual,  not  even  Peter  ever  did 
habitttally.  (Read  the  passage.)  Before  that  certain  came  from 
James,  he  did  eat  with  the  gentiles,  but  when  they  were 
come,  he  withdrew,  fearing  them  which  were  of  the  circumci- 
sion." For  this,  Paul  rebuked  liim  before  all,  saying  why  com- 
pellestthou,  &c."  This  is  Amicus's  proof  that  the  '^Apostles  com- 
pelled  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  !"  That  Peter  disap- 
proved his  own  weakness,  is  evident  from  his  making  no  reply, 
and  afterwards  commending  Paul  and  his  Epistles,  (2  Pet.  iii. 
15.)  he  calls  him  his  beloved  brother  Paul,"  and  ranks  his 
writings  with  **  the  other  Scriptures." 

Now,  says  Amicus,  if  the  Apostles  were  so  zealous  for  the 
law  of  Moses,  can  we  wonder  they  should  occasionally  be  found 
in  the  use  of  John's  baptism  ?"  So  zealous  !  Where  is  the  proof 
that  they  ever  were  zealous  for  any  abrogated  rite  ?  I  deny  that 
they  ever  commanded,  or  approved,  or  generally  practised  any 
Jewish  rite,  whether  drcumcisioni  sacrifices,  or  J\*axarite^s  vows. 
If  they  did,  where  is  the  evidence?  There  is  none.  But  against 
all  these  things  there  is  an  overwhelming  weight  of  Apostolic 
testimony.  But  there  is  evidence  in  abundance  that  they  un- 
derstood water  baptism  as  obligatory  on  the  church,  and  practis- 
ed it  not  occasionally,"  but  universally  :  while  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  they  ever  changed  their  view  s  or  practice ;  but  proof 
the  most  satisfactory,  that  they  left  this  ordinance  in  full  force 
to  their  converts  and  successors.  I  have  been  thus  particular 
in  answering  your  objections  because  they  were  plausible  and 
imposing — because  this  is  your  Fort — because,  I  tiiink,  the  more 
the  general  conduct  of  the  Apostles  is  scrutinized,  the  more  it 
will  be  found  to  harmonize  with  tlieir  Prcachiiig  and  their  Writ- 
ings :  and  thus  confii*m  our  faith,  that  both  in  doctrines  and  in 
ordinances  they  were  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Having  thus  proved  negatively  that  Apostolic  testimony  is  st 


9£ 

safe  rule  in  ordinances,  as  well  as  doctrines  ;  I  will  now  adduce 
a  few  considerations  to  prove  the  same  poiwt  positively.  And  1* 
The  declaration  prefixed  to  tliis  Essay  proves  that  the  Apostle  in- 
tended his  ordinances  to  he  observed,  as  well  as  his  doctrines 
believed.  Else  why  should  be  ''praise"  the  Corinthians  for 
keeping"  them.  To  tlie  Thessalonians  he  says  the  same 
thing.  **  Brethren  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye 
Iiave  been  taught  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle."  (2  Thess. 
ii.  15.)  By  "ordinances"  and  traditions,"  are  here  intend- 
ed all  regulations  and  observances  of  an  external  kind.  The 
passage  is  too  plain  to  need  further  comment. 

2.  The  peculiarity  of  their  work  required  inspiration  in  ordi- 
nances as  well  as  doctrines.  Many  of  the  Prophets  had  only  a 
message  to  deliver,  a  prophecy  to  utter,  and  then  disappear. 
But  the  Apostles,  like  Moses,  had  to  establish  a  new  economy  ; 
like  him,  therefore,  it  was  necessary  they  should  see  "a  pattern 
in  the  Mount,"  and  know  the  place  of  every  pin  of  the  Taber- 
nacle tliey  were  to  erect.  In  other  words,  it  was  necessary  they 
should  have  divine  direction  in  modelling  the  external  as  well  as 
internal  order  of  the  church.  It  was  necessary  they  should 
know  every  change  to  be  made  in  the  government,  ordinances, 
and  external  regulations  of  Christ's  visible  kingdom.  Their 
testimony  for  Christian  ordinances  is  as  good  as  the  testimony 
of  Moses  for  Jewish  ordinances.  Of  the  inspiration  of  Moses 
you  have  no  doubt,  why  of  the  Jlpostles? 

3.  Tlie  Promise  of  Christ  secured  tlieir  infallihilityf  in  this, 
as  well  as  other  respects.  *'  AVlien  the  Spirit  of  Truth  is  come, 
he  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth,"  (John  xvi.  13.) — **  He  shall 
teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  recollection 
Tvhatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you."  (xiv.  And  again, 
*'  whatsoever  ye  vshall  bind,  or  loose  on  eartli,  shall  be  bound  or 
loosed  in  heaven:"  (Matt,  xviii.  18.)  These  promises  were 
intended  as  a  security  both  to  them  and  to  us  of  their  infallihility. 
But  this  promise  covers  Ordinances  as  well  as  Doctrines;  for 
it  is  said,  "  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind,  &c."  If  therefore,  their 
Doctrines  are  obligatory,  so  are  their  Ordinances; — if  their 
Writings  were  inspired,  so  was  their  Preaching.  There  is  no 
promise  that  they  sliould  be  infallible  in  one  and  not  in  the  oth- 
er. You  must  therefore  eitlier  reject  the  testimony  of  the  Apos- 
tles on  ervery  subject,  or  admit  their  testimony  fpr  Water  Bap- 
tism. 

Lastly;  on  the  subject  of  Ordinances,  the  Apostles  either 
were  inspired,  or  they  were  not.    If  not,  their  testimony  against 
the  Mosaic  rites  is  worth  nothing — if  they  were  inspired  in 
jecting  these  they  were  also  in  estahlishinp;  Water  Ba])tism.  For 
they  as  expressly  commanded  and  practised  the  latter,  as  they 


93 


I  injected  and  condemned  the  former.  Thus  your  doctrine  can- 
not  be  supported  without  denying  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles, 
and  accusing  our  Lord  of  equivocation. 

Having  now  answered  tlie  leading  objections  of  Amicus,  I 
will  in  my  next  adduce  some  new  arguments. 

PAUL. 


Se'vmth'dayy  gth  Mo.  3,  1221. 

LETTER  XII. 

In  Paul's"  last  attempt  to  reply  to  my  arguments,  against 
the  use  of  Water  Baptism  in  tlie  christian  Church,  I  hardly 
know  which  most  to  admire,  the  strength  of  his  assertions,  or 
the  weakness  of  his  arguments,  his  inconsistencies  with  himself, 
or  with  the  plain  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  As  he  has  in- 
'  volved  himself  in  difficulty,  from  which  the  sacred  penmen  cannot 
exti'icate  him,  as  he  has  attempted  to  make  a  plain  path  obscure 
by  strewing  it  with  sophisms  and  various  matters  wholly  irre- 
levant to  the  subject,  before  I  enter  on  the  business  of  answering 
his  particular  positions,  I  w  ill  again  briefly  revert  to  the  broad 
grounds  on  wiiich  alone  this  carnal  ordinance  must  stand  or  fall. 
In  order  to  prevent  concision,  and  all  unnecessary  repetition, 
these  grounds  should  constantly  be  kept  in  view,  as  all  sound 
argument  in  the  present  discussion,  must  always  refer  to  them. 

The  Jirst  is — The  conformity  of  carnal  ordinances  to  the 
nature  of  the  Gospel  dispensation." 

Secondly. — Some  eocpress  command  of  Christ,  binding  his 
followers  to  observe  them." 

dnd  Lastly. — "The  practice  of  the  Apostles." 

1.  On  the  first  great  point,  there  seems  to  be  no  disj)ute  be- 
tween us.  That  Water  Baptism  is  a  carnal  ordinance  is  cer- 
tain. **  Paul"  does  not  deny  it.  That  its  nature  is  legal  and 
not  evangelical  every  Christian  must  admit ;  being  elementary  it 
has  no  application  to  the  soul, — being  figurative  or  typical  it 
ranks  with  the  types  and  figures  of  the  Mosaic  law .  It  was 
instituted  by  John  the  Baptist  before  the  introduction  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  and  in  the  radiance  of  Gospel  light,  it 
must  fade  away  with  other  w  eak  and  shadowy  ceremonies  of  the 
Jewish  economy — Christ  must  increase,  but  John  must  de- 
crease.^^ 

2.  On  the  second  point,  Some  express  command  of  our 
Lord,  binding  his  followers  to  observe  it,"  I  haA  e  not  only 
shewn  that  there  is  no  such  command,  but  1  have  clearly  proved, 
that  the  texts  adduced  by  my  opponent  to  substantiate  his  posi- 


94 


fioia,  are  when  interpreted  by  each  other,  the  most  insurmount- 
able obstacle  in  his  way.  Paul's"  method  of  getting  over 
this  difficulty,  is  not  by  a  resort  to  Scripture  authority,  but  to 
one  of  the  most  singular  sophisms  that  has  ever  attracted  my 
attention — affording  no  evidence  but  that  his  own  cause  is  weak 
and  languishing.  As  he  has  used  a  kind  of  syllogism  for  his 
purpose,  I  will  return  his  civility,  by  stating  one  of  a  different 
nature — one  not  founded  in  sarcasm,  the  refuge  of  disappointed 
hope,  but  on  plain  Scripture  testimony,  and  the  concessions  of 
my  opponent. 

The  Baptism  which  Christ  commanded,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19. 
and  Mark.  xvi.  15,  16,  is  essential  to  salvation. 

But  Water  Baptism  is  not  essential  to  salvation. 

Ergo.  The  Baptism  which  Christ  commanded  is  not  Watei^ 
Baptism. 

The  major  proposition  is  clearly  proved  by  the  text,  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 

The  minor  Paul"  grants.  He  expressly  acknowledges  that 
"Water  Baptism  is  not  essential  to  salvation. 

The  Conclusion  is  irresistible.  **  The  Baptism  Christ  com- 
manded is  not  Water  Baptism."  It  is  the  Baptismof  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Christ's  own  essential  Baptism,  without  which  none  can 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 

3.  On  the  thiM  point,  I  admitted  that  tlie  Apostles  in  the  ear- 
ly periods  of  the  Christian  church,  practised  Water  Baptism  as 
well  as  Circuift«ision,  legal  vows  and  sacrifices — but  I  denied 
that  their  practice  could  sanction  Water  Baptism,  any  more  than 
it  could  sanction  Jewish  ordinances,  or  that  it  authorized  the  iise 
of  Water  in  the  present  day,  any  further  than  it  authorized  the 
me  of  ciraimcision  and  other  legal  ceremonies  in  the  Christian 
church.  I  demonstrated  by  several  plain  texts  of  Scripture,  that 
Water  Baptism  was  to  decrease  agreeably  to  the  prediction  of 
John  the  Baptist,  and  that  it  did  decrease  in  the  time  of  the  Apos- 
tles. Referring  to  two  of  these  texts,  '*  Paul"  says,  "  take 
away  these  two  passages  and  you  have  not  a  sentence  to  shew 
that  these  Apostles  ever  changed  their  earliest  views."  Now  I 
have  no  doubt  that  it  would  be  very  convenient  to  my  opponent 
to  take  away  these  tw  o  passages — but,  as  on  the  one  hand,  I 
have  no  desire  to  take  away  from  the  words  of  the  Book,"  so 
on  the  other,  I  do  not  see  how^  any  lover  of  truth" — any  be- 
liever in  ^'  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  sacred  volume,"  can 
consistently  wish  them  removed.  But  whether  we  wish  them 
removed  or  not,  there  they  stand,  and  there  they  are  likely  to 
stand  an  evidence  of  the  truth  of  my  position — an  evidence 
which  no  sophistry  can  weaken,  no  art  can  invalidate. 

Now,  although  in  a  former  Essay  I  gave  chapter  and  verse 


95 


for  the  passages  alluded  to,  yet  in  order  more  perfectly  to  illus- 
trate the  subject  I  will  again  refer  to  them,  state  a  few  argu- 
ments, and  attempt  to  demonstrate  what  I  consider  indubitable 
— that  TVater  Baptism  ivas  on  thg  wane  and  rapidly  dedininj;  in 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  I  refer  to  these  texts,  in  the  belief  that 
they  are  sufficiently  conclusive  on  the  subject,  but  if  necessary, 
I  can  adduce  other  strong  evidence  to  substantiate  this  view. 

The  first  is  in  1  Cor.  i.  11,  6cc.  where  the  Apostle  says,  '*  It 
"  hath  been  declared  unto  me,  of  you  my  brethren,  by  them 
which  are  of  the  house  of  Chloe,  that  there  are  contentions 
among  you  ;  now^  this  I  say  that  every  one  of  you  saith 
I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of 
Christ  :    Is  Christ  divided  ?  was  Paul  crucified  for  you,  or 
were  you  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?    I  thank  God  I  bap- 
tized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains,  lest  any  should  say 
I  had  baptized  in  my  ow  n  name  ;  and  I  baptized  also  the 
*•  household  of  Stephanas,  besides  I  know  not  w  hether  I  bap- 
-      tized  any  other,  for  Christ  sent  mc  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preacli 
the  gospeL^^ 

On  this  passage,  I  will  observe  that  the  Apostle's  reason  for 
thanking  God  that  he  had  baptized  so  few  of  them,  *•  lest  any 
should  say  he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name,*'  is  only  valid  up- 
on the  supposition  that  Christ  sent  him  not  to  baptize  with  water. 
Upon  any  other  hypothesis,  this  would  have  been  no  reason  at 
all  for  his  delinquency.  What !  Can  the  abuse  of  any  Gospel 
ordinance  be  a  reason  for  its  disuse  ?  If  so,  w  hat  religious  insti- 
tution may  we  not  lay  aside  ?  People  may  go  to  a  place  of  wor- 
ship to  gi»atify  their  pride,  to  be  gazed  at  by  their  fellow  crea- 
tui^es,  to  be  thought  religious :  these  are  among  many  of  the 
palpable  abuses  of  the  institution  of  public  worship  :  What 
then  !  Should  we  therefore  justify  the  man  that  w  ould  thank  God 
he  had  been  seldom  at  a  religious  meeting  ?  Again,  the  public 
ministry  may  be  made  an  engine  of  ambition,  a  tool  of  state,  a 
means  of  aggrandizement ;  it  may  be  assumed  for  the  sake  of 

filthy  lucre  What  then  !  shall  we  discourage  a  public  min- 
istry because  it  is  used  for  sinister  purposes,  because  some  men 
become  Shepherds  for  the  sake  of  the  Wool  ?  Certainly  not ! 
We  should  rectify  the  abuse,  but  not  abolish  the  use.  These 
very  Corinthians  made  the  Gospel  ministry  an  occasion  of 
party,*'  as  is  evident  from  1  Cor.  ii.  5  :  for  w  hile  one  saith  I 
am  of  Paul,  and  another  I  am  of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal  ?" 

Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos  but  ministers  by  whom 
ye  believed  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ?"  I  have  planted, 
Apollos  watei^ed,  but  God  gave  the  increase."  Now  let  us  sup- 
pose that  the  Apostle,  because  of  this  abuse  of  his  ministry,  had 
said,  ••  I  thank  God  I  preached  only  to  a  few^  of  you,  lest  any 


96 


of  you  should  say  I  preach  in  my  own  name,"  or  'Ho  make 
Paulites."  Would  this  reason  he  deemed  a  valid  one  ?  I  am 
persuaded  that  none  of  my  readers  will  answer  in  the  affirma- 
tive !  How  then  can  we  justify  a  similar  reason  in  the  case  of 
Water  Baptism,  especially  if  it  were  commanded  hy  the  same 
authority  and  at  the  same  time  with  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  ? 
We  cannot  possihly  do  it.  The  Apostle  knew  very  well  that  if 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  had  expressly  commanded  him  to 
go  and  baptize  all  nations  in  water,  he  would  not  be  excused  for 
disobedience  to  a  divine  command,  because  his  converts  made 
his  practice  under  such  authority  an  occasion  of  party,''  and 
therefore,  he  was  careful  to  give  a  much  better  reason  for  de- 
clining the  dipping  system,  **  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize  but 
to  preach  the  Gospel." 

My  opponent's  reasoning  on  this  passage  is  wholly  inadmis- 
sible, because  he  takes  for  granted  what  is  not  authorized  by  the 
text.  The  Apostle  does  not  say  of  the  ministry,  I  view  this 
as  my  principal  business."  I  consider  Water  Baptism  a  looser 
kind  of  service,  which  I  may  either  do  or  leave  undone  just  as 
circumstances  may  dictate.  He  says  positively,  Christ  sent 
me  not  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  GospeU'*  and  on  no  other 
ground  could  he  be  justified  for  omitting  the  one  or  practising 
the  other. 

Now  when  it  is  considered,  that  this  Epistle  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans was  written  at  least /owr  years  after  we  have  any  scripture 
account  that  the  Apostle  used  Water  Baptism,  I  think  it  must 
be  evident  that  **  his  earliest  views"  were  changed,"  or,  he 
would  not  have  said  in  positive  terms,  I  thank  God  I  baptiz- 
ed none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains." 

The  second  case  I  adduced  to  prove  the  decline  of  Water 
Baptism  in  the  primitive  church,  is  found  in  1  Pet.  iii.  21  : 
where  the  Apostle  speaking  of  the  saving  Baptism,  describes 
its  effects  in  very  lucid  terms,  first  negatively,  not  the  putting 
away  the  filth  of  the  flesh  ;"  then  positively,  but  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  toward  God."  Elementary  Baptism  has 
necessarily  no  other  effect  than  to  purify  the  Body;  it  is  per- 
fectly useless  as  a  religious  act,  under  the  christian  dispensa- 
tion, which  is  the  communication  of  an  eternal  efficient  prindple 
by  which  sin  is  mortified,  the  soul  purified  and  prepared  for  ce- 
lestial  enjoyment. 

Now  when  we  consider,  that  Peter  wrote  tliis  Epistle  about 
Eighteen  years  after  we  have  any  evidence  that  he  liad  baptized 
with  water,  I  think  it  furnishes  satisfactory  testimony  of  a 
change  in  his  **  earliest  views,"  that  his  mind  was  prepared,  by 
divine  illumination,  to  let  the  weak  watery  baptism  of  John  give 
place  to  the  powerful  sanctifying  Baptism  of  til»e  Holy  Spirit. 


97 


Paul-'  attempts  to  prove  that  our  Lord  meant  to  perpetuate 
John^s  Baptism — tliat  be  only  changed  the  name — that  he  intend- 
ed his  Apostles  should  make  disciples,  just  as  John  had  done, 
liy  dipping  them  in  water — that  *•  tlie  only  cliange  or  novelty  he 
meant  to  introduce,  he  was  careful  to  express,  as  he  did  in  re- 
gard to  the  nam  e  in  which  they  were  to  baptize."  Now  the 
fallacy  of  these  assertions  will  appear  from  the  following  con- 
siderations ;  first,  the  Apostles  never  afterw  ards  baptized  with 
water '"-'in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  consequently  they  did  not  understand  him  to  perpetu- 
ate Water  Baptism  in  another  name  ov  with  a  new  f  arm  of  words. 
Secondly.  In  order  to  fulfil  the  ministry  and  baptism  he  com- 
manded, it  was  necessary  they  should  be  endued  with  new  pow- 
er, **Tarry  ye  at  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from 
on  hi^h,  Luke  xxiv.  49.  for  John  truly  ba])tized  witli  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  ye  shall  receive 
power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you."  Acts  i.  5, 
8.  Now  tlie  power  to  baptize  with  water,  to  pronounce  any  form 
of  words  over  their  converts,  they  already  possessed  ;  and  if  our 
Lord  had  intended  to  continue  the  typical  baptism  of  John,  he 
needed  not  to  command  them  to  wait  for  further  powers — the 
natural  faculties  of  the  unregenerate  Christian  may  perform  a 
carnal  baptism,  but  the  qualification  to  preach  the  pure  gospel  of 
Clirist,  to  baptize  with  his  Baptism,  can  only  be  derived  from 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  coming  on  his  ministers. 

I  think  the  unprejudiced  reader  will  now  admit  that  the  three 
great  pillars  which  have  been  used  to  support  Water  Baptism  are 
completely  removed — I  do  not  expect  to  convince  any  man  against 
his  will,  nor  against  his  interest ;  but  as  I  defend,  what  I  con- 
sider the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  I  shall  very  cheerfully  rest  the 
case  with  those,  who  in  simplicity  and  sincerity,  are  seeking  the 
truth,  and  wish  to  be  governed  by  the  priiiciplcs  laid  down  by 
our  blessed  Lord  and  his  faithful  Apostles.  1  will  now  briefly 
notice  some  of  Paul's"  remarks  in  his  last  address  to  us,  and 
point  to  some  of  his  inconsistencies  and  self-contradictions  : — 

First.  He  says  tliat  "  tlie  principle  object  of  his  previous 
number,  was  to  shew,  that  the  baptism,  enjoined  in  our  Lord's 
commission.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  was  a  literal  and  not  a  figurative 
baptism,"  he  also  says,  that  Amicus  seems  entirely  to  have 
forgotten  this  object  /"  My  readers  will  however  do  me  the  jus- 
tice to  acknowledge  tliat  so  far  fi-om  forgetting  thh  object,  "Am- 
icus" completely  defeated  it,  by  proving  from  that  text,  and  the 
correspondiiig  passage,  Mark  xvi.  15,  IG.  tliat  it  could  not  be 
taken  literally,  because  it  was  an  essential  baptism  that  Christ 
comniajided,  which  W^ater  Baptism  is  not.  Now  I  cannot  un- 
derstand why  I  should  be  bound  to  accept  the  word  Baptism  li- 
13 


98 


ieraUif^  even  if  I  Iiad  not  proved  by  tlic  words  of  the  text,  that  it 
could  not  be  so  understood.  Paul"  acknowledges  that  1  have 
tibout  twenty  scripture  examples  for  using  it  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
and  I  know  I  have  many  more;  but  perhaps  he  \ms forgotten, 
that  in  the  fourteen  Epistles  of  the  Apostle  Paul — in  the  Epistle 
of  James — ^the  tw  o  Epistles  of  Peter — the  three  of  John — that  of 
JuJe,  and  in  the  Book  of  Revelations,  it  is  never  used  in  a  literal 
sense^  except  in  two  or  three  instances  where  the  Apostles  are 
speaking  against  Water  Baptism. 

His  attempt  to  justify  the  sprinkling  system^  borders  closely 
on  the  ludicrous  !  he  thinks  the  three  thousand  persons  baptized 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  baptized  with  water,  and,  as  the 
dijyping  of  so  many  would  have  been  very  difficult,  therefore,  the 
Apostles  sprinkled  them.  It  would  he  well  however,  first  to 
prove  that  they  were  baptized  with  ivater  at  all ;  it  should  not 
hQ  forgotten  that  this  was  the  day  in  which  the  prediction  of  our 
Lord  was  so  remarkably  fulfilled,  **ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  Acts  i.  5.  The  whole  chapter  gives  strong 
evidence  that  the  baptism  of  the  tliree  thousand  was  the  spiritual 
baptism  of  the  new  dispensation,  and  not  the  weak  baptism  of 
Joim  the  forerunner. 

In  considering  my  proofs  of  the  fallibility  of  the  Apostles, 
^*  Paul"  seems  much  confused — he  advances  and  retreats  alter- 
nately with  rapid  Meps.  First,  he  considers  *'  Amicus"  bold" 
and  "  presumptuous,"  in  admitting  the  imperfection  of  some 
parts  of  their  practice,  tlien  he  admits  *'tlicy  were  imperfect  and 
liable  like  all  otlier  christians  to  occasional  inconsistendts  ol  con- 
duct," he  then  enquires,  '*  if  they  eri'edm  mie  particular,  why 
not  in  all  ?" — then  he  grants  that  they  were  erroneous  in  insu- 
lated particulars,''^  but  taught  no  errors  either  in  their  writings, 
preaching  or  practice,  tal^en  as  a  rvhole,^^  then  tacitly  admits 
that  **  they  were  in  error,  and  did  not  ?Lctjust  as  our  Lord  wish- 
ed them  to  act,  but  were  soon  and  forever  corrected.'"  He  ad- 
mits that  **  Paul  circumcised  Timothy,"  and  was  guilty  of  a 
**weak  compliance  with  Jewish  prejudices;"  that  he  was  once 
engageci  in  Jewish  sacrifces^' — that  **  PcHer  disapproved  of  his 
own  weakness^^  in  ''compelling  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the 
Jews,''  in  dissembling  and  walking  not  uprightly  according  to 
the  trutli  of  the  Gospel,  and  yet  lie  demands  *' where  was-their 
ignorance,  their  mistake,  their  indulgence  of  the  people  in  carnal 
ordinances."  I  do  not  know  what  **  Paul's  friends  may  think 
of  this  method  of  defending  tlieir  doctrines,  nor  can  I  see  how 

Amicus"  can  be  charged  witli  holding  **  sentiments  of  a  deisti- 
cal  tendency,''  unless  **  Paul"  should  be  adjudged  to  bear  a  part 
of  this  odious  burden,  because  he  lias  fully  gi'anted  every  posi- 
tion of    Amicus"  on  the  subject  uf  Apostolic /fiW?fei/ifi/. 


99 

But  lliis  is  not  all  tliat  he  has  granted,  in  his  unwonted  readi- 
ness to  make  concessions,  he  has  carried  liis  airnal  scheme  one 
step  further  than  I  had  ever  seen  it  extended  ;  he  thinks  any 
missionary  among  the  Jews  at  the  present  day  might  circumcise 
his  converts  if  he  thought  it  would  ingratiate  him  with  that 
blinded  people !"  If  these  be  the  sentiments  of  modern  mission- 
aries I  think  we  need  not  he  surprized  to  liear  of  the  revival  of 
Jewish  practices,  to  see  the  '*  hand-writing  of  ordinances" 
taken  down  from  the  cross"  where  Christ  **  nailed"  it ;  t  see 
the  knife  of  circumcision  again  introduced,  notwithstanding  the 
Apostle  has  expressly  asserted,  that  **if  ye  he  circumcised, 
Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing,"  Gal.  v.  2. 

Now  as  Paul"  has  admitted  tlie  fallibility  of  the  Apostles, 
ill  **insiUated  particulars,^^ — that  they  were  imperfect^  and  liable 
|i  like  all  other  chi'istians,  to  occasional  inconsistencies  of  conduct," 
— subject  to  weak  compliances  with  Jervish  prejudices,*'  that 
sometimes,  '*they  did  not  act  just  as  our  Lord  wished  them,"  it 
-  must  be  evident  that  he  has  completely  overturned  all  his  own 
laboured  conclusions  on  their  supposed  infallibility. 

Having  removed  all  the  plausible  objections  to  the  doctrines  I 
advocate;  having  pointed  to  the  singular  spectacle  of  a  man 
aiding  in  defeating  himself,  I  shall  for  the  present  close  this  sub- 
ject, cheerfully  committing  my  cause  into  the  hands  of  the  can- 
did reader;  with  the  information,  that  it  is  my  iritention  in  my 
next  Essay,  to  introduce  another  subject  for  his  consideration 
and  judgment. 

AMICUS. 

— ;  -i^ : 

Saturday,  September  15,  1821. 

LETTER  X, 

ox  BAPTISM. 

It  was  the  express  command  of  Jesus  Christ  "  Go  teach  all 
nations  baptizing  them."  Those  who  say  that  the  word  bap- 
ti-sm  is  here  used  in  an  uncommon  and  extraordinary  sense,  arc 
bound  in  the  first  place,  to  prove  their  bold  assertion;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  to  prove  the  inspired  Apostles  mistaken  in  in- 
ternreting  their  Master's  mind  and  will.  From  the  second 
i  chapter  of  Acts  we  learn  that  shoi-tly  after  receiving  their  com- 
TO'ssion,  the  Apostles  **,.were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place," 
(1st  versi  )  when  **they  were  nW  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
began  to  speak  with  otiier  tongues  as  the  Sprrit  ^axe  ^hem 
utterance.*-  4.  Among  otl»er  things  wliirlj  Peter  standing 
wp  with  the  eleven,"  spoke,  he  said,  ''Repent  and  be  baptized 


100 


every  one  of  you  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  **  Then  they  that  gladly  received 
the  word  were  baptized,  and  the  same  day  there  \\  ere  added  un- 
to them  about  3000  souls."  (37,  41.)  Upon  this  subject  we  re- 
mark. 1.  The  wJiole  body  of  the  Apostles  was  here  assembled, 
— they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ,^ — all  spake  **  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance.  Of  course  what  they  spoke  was 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit ^  or  the  doctrine  of  God  himself.  The 
truth  of  w  hat  they  £])oke  cannot  be  questioned  without  question- 
ing the  veracity  of  the  spirit  of  Truth.  2.  They  commanded 
the  people  to  be  baptixed — not  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  this  is 
no  man's  duty, — and  *'the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is  spoken  of 
as  a  blessing  which  they  should  receive  in  consequence  of  bap- 
tism ; — but  with  water  as  these  same  Apostles  afterwards  ex- 
plain  their  own  meaning  in  tlie  cases  of  the  Centurion,  Eunuch 
and  others.  The  Eunuch  going  home  from  this  feast  took  it  for 
granted  Christians  must  be  baptized,  and  therefore  said  to 
Philip  "  see  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  ? 
and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  and  he  baptized  him.'* 
(Acts  viii.  38.)  Eight  years  after  Pentecost,  the  Apostle  Peter 
by  baptism  undei'stood  something  different  from  receiving  the 
Holy  Ghost.  <*  Who  can  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be 
baptixed  w  hich  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we 
And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptixed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord : 
(Acts  X.  47.)  Four  years"  before  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians, 
i.  e.  twenty  three  years  after  Pentecost,  according  to  Amicus's 
own  acknowledgment,  the  Apostle  Paul  used  water  baptism." 
And  we  shall  soon  see  he  used  it  at  a  much  later  period.  Here 
then  is  the  Unanimous  testimony  of  12  Inspired  Apostles  against 
the  opinions  of  George  Fox  and  his  followers !  Now^  whether 
Baptism  be  a  carnal  ordinance,"  or  one  perfectly  conforma- 
ble to  the  nature  of  the  present  dispensation,"  is  a  question 
which  I  leave  Amicus  to  discuss  with  our  Lord  and  his  xipostles. 
For  m}  }>art,  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  holding  a  candle  to  the 
Sun,  or  wishing  to  direct  tlie  decisions  of  Infinite  Wisdom. 

The  major  proposition  of  his  very  formal  sylogism,  to  wit,  that 
*Hhe  baptism  commanded  by  Christ  is  essential  to  salvation," 
was  fully  refuted  in  my  last.    His  conclusion  falls  of  course. 

The  Apostle  Paul  was  sent  both  to  baptixe  and  preach.  The 
former,  after  he  found  it  an  occasion  of  party  spirit,  he  perform- 
ed by  the  hands  of  others,  as  our  Lord  did,  John  iv.  1,  2.  and 
as  l*eter  did.  Acts  x.  47.  but  he  couhVpreach  only  in  his  own 
person.  And  this  is  the  reason,  if  Amicus  wishes  one,  why  he 
did  not  thank  God  he  had  preached  the  gospel  only  to  a  few,'* 
while  he  thanks  God  he  had  left  baptism  to  his  companions. 

I  am  charged  by  Amicus  with  first  denying  and  then — admits 


101 


f  ing  the  *•  fallibility"  of  the  Apostles.  The  charge  lies  against 
his  own  abuse  of  the  English  language.  1  have  never  in  a  sin- 
gle instance  admitted  the  fallibility  of  the  Apostles.  They  must 
have  bee!i  perfecUy  infallible^  or  not  inspired.  ^*  Fallibility," 
according  to  Walker,  signifies  liableness  to  be  deceived," — 
of  course  relates  solely  to  errors  in  jndgmentn  and  has  nothing 
to  do  with  practice.  Now  I  appeal  to  the  public,  if  it  is  not  the 
manifest  objert  of  my  last  essay  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  nev- 
er erred  in  judg  nent,  never  decided  wrong.  It  was  admitted 
that,  through  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  they  occasionally  acted 
contrary  to  their  judgment;  but  that  their  judgment  was  at  all 
times  rights  and  they  never  deceived"  in  their  views  of  any 
ordinance  or  doctrine.  My  doctrine  was  that  though  frail  as 
men^  they  \\  ere  infallible  as  teachers. — 

In  confirmation  of  what  I  have  said,  in  former  essays  of  the 
Command  of  Christ,  and  the  Practice  of  the  Apostles  I  now 
add^ 

THIRDLY.  The  Jlpostles  did  not  consider  the  baptism  which  they 
administered  as  Johns's  baptism,  bnt  as  an  institution  of  Christ. 
You  tell  usthev  practised  **  John's  Baptism," — but  w  itliout  the 
least  authority  ;  yea  in  tlie  very  face  of  scripture.    In  Acts  xix. 
1,  5,  we  are  told  that  "  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper 
coasts,  came  to  Ephesus ;  and  finding  certain  disciples,  he 
**  said  unto  them.  Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye  be- 
lieved  ?  And  they  said  unto  l\im,  we  have  not  so  much  as  heard 
whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.    And  lie  said  unto  them, 
Unto  what  tlien  w  ere  ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said,  unto  John^s 
baptism.    Then  said  Paul',  John  verily  baptized  witli  the  bap- 
**tism  of  re])entance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should 
believe  on  him  which  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on  Christ 
Jesus.    And  when  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jcsus.^^    Here  then  were  a  number  of  John's 
disci])lcs  rebaptix>ed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.    An  unques- 
tionable  proof  that  the  Apostles  considered  Clirist's  baptism  as 
different  tvom  that  of  John.    You  may  say,  if  you  please,  *'they 
were  deceived,  and  misunderstood  their  commission."    Bnt  you 
will  pardon  me,  if  I  doubt  your  infallibility  sooner  than  theirs. 

Fourthly.  Our  Lord  makes  wafer  baptism  essential  to  member- 
ship in  the  visible  church.  John  iii.  5  :  *'  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God.^*  What  can  the  phrase  ''born  of  water,"  mean  but  bap- 
tism ?  The  phrase  '*  kingdom  of  God,"  or  ''  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven," (for  they  are  one  and  the  same)  is  in  Scripture  used  iii 
two  senses,  for  the  visible,  and  for  the  invisible  chui-ch  ;  or  for 
the  body  of  apparent  and  of  real  saints.  That  it  sometimes 
means  the  invisible  church,  all  will  admit :  but  that  it  oftea 


102 


means  also  the  visible  church,  none  will  doubt  who  read  the  pa- 
rables of  the  Tares,"  the  <»Net,"  the  "Ten  Virgins," 
(Matt.  xiii.  24,  47  and  xxv.  1.)  The  kingdom  of  heaven"  is 
in  these  passages  spoken  of  as  containing  bad  as  well  as  good, 
hypocrites  well  2is  saints,  wiiich  cannot  be  true  of  the  invisible 
church.  Now  to  enter  the  visible  church,  or  the  society  of  pro- 
fessing christians,  it  is  necessary  to  be  born  of  water,"  or  to 
be  baptized;  to  enter  the  church  invisible,  or  the  society  of  real 
saints,  sontetliing  more  is  necessary,  even  to  be  born  of  the 
spirit,"  or  be  renewed  in  heart.  The  Jews  used  to  say  of  Gen- 
tile proselytes  after  baptism,  that  they  w  ere  **  born  again,"  and 
to  this  our  Saviour  probably  alludes.  Here  then  is  proof  not 
only  cif  the  propriety,  but  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  water  bap- 
tism to  church  membership.  This  looks  something  like  making 
it  a  "badge  of  discipleship!" 

FiFTHiY.  The  Jpostles  speak  of  it  as  an  important  means  of 
salvation.  As  our  Lord  places  it  next  to  faith,  Mark  xvi.  16  : 
and  next  to  regeneration  in  the  passage  before  quoted,  so  the 
Apostles  place  it  next  to  essential  things.    Thus  Acts  ii.  38  : 

Repent  and  be  baptized,''  They  required  it  as  sl  profession  of 
religion  and  a  means  of  grace.  Eph.  v.  26  :  "Christ  loved  the 
church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  cleanse  it  w  ith  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  w  ord."  Here  the  "  washing  with  wa- 
ter," or  baptism,  is  spoken  of  as  one  means,  along  w  ith  the  word 
of  cleansing  the  church.  This  ordinance  as  well  as  preaching, 
christians  know  to  be  a  means  of  grace  and  sanctification. 

The  same  sentiment  is  conveyed,  Tit.  iii.  5  ;  "He  saved  us 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  former,  (to  adopt  your  style)  is  the  baptism  of 
water,  the  latter  of  tlie  spirit.  Abundant  quotations  might  be 
made  from  the  early  Fathers,  show  ing  that  the  "  w  ashing  of  re- 
generation" w  as  a  phrase  in  common  use  with  the  early  Chris- 
tians to  signify  baptism.  Not  that  they  supposed  this  outward 
ceremony  changed  the  heart,  but  typified  that  change.  Just  as 
circumcision  is  called  "  the  covenant,"  (Gen.  xvii.)  because  it 
was  a  sign  of  the  covenant ;  and  the  cup  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  called  the  "  New-  Testament,"  because  it  is  a  symbol  and  seal 
of  that  Testament.  Thus  Baptism  is  liere  called  tlie  "  w  ashing 
jof  regeneration,"  because  it  is  a  symbol  or  sign  of  regeneration. 
The  Apostle  here  makes  it  a  means  of  salvation  ;  "  He  hath 
saved  us  by  the  washing,  &c." 

Again  ;  Heb.  x.  22  :  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in 
full  assurance  of  faitli,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil 
conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  w  ater."  Observe, 
hei'f  is  something  external  well  as  internal,  something  on  the 
l)ody  as  well  as  tiie  spirit,  recommended  to  all  who  could  ap- 


103 


proacli  God  acceptably.  Or,  to  speak  hi  your  language,  heve 
is  the  baptism  with  water  as  well  as  tlie  S;pirit  required.  Note 
also,  that  this  '*  washing  with  water,"  is  recommended  in  that 
same  Epistle,  and  in  the  very  next  chapter  to  that  in  which  all 
Jewish  ordinances,  and  divers  washings,  are  said  to  be  done 
away;  (ix.  10.)  a  plain  proof  that  Christian  baptism  is  not  to 
be  numbered  with  the  divers  washings"  of  the  Jews."  Note 
also,  that  sprinkling  and  washing  are  here  spoken  of  as  synoni- 
tnous  terms ;  and  also,  that  tliis  Epistle  was  written  within  a 
year  or  two  of  the  Apostle's  death.  So  that  his  view  s  were  not 
yet  changed, 

I  know"  no  other  way  in  which  tbese  arguments  can  be  answer- 
ed but  by  saying,  this  water,  this  washing,  &c.  means  spiritual 
waters,  spiritual  washing.  But,  not  to  say  that  spiritnal  cleans- 
ing is  spoken  of  besides  in  these  very  passages,  it  is  easy  to  see 
nothing  would  satisfy  such  an  objector  !  For  if  our  Lord  had  said 

Go  baptize  with  water,^^ — to  such  an  ohjector  it  would  not 
have  been  an  **  express  command,"  as  be  would  still  say  our 
Lord  meant  *^  spiritual  water  !"  The  language  is  as  plain  as 
any  reasonable  man  can  ask. 

Sixthly.  The  *^postle  John,  in  aii  Epistle  written  after  all 
the  other  Apostles  were  dead,  speaks  of  Baptism  as  one  of  the  three 
standing  witnesses  for  Christ,  1  John  v.  8.  Having  spoken  of  a 
Trinity  of  witnesses  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  and  the 
Holy  Gliost,"  he  adds,  and  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in 
earth,  the  Spirit,  the  Water  and  the  Blood,^^  to  tliis  great  truth 

that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his 
Son."  The  Spirit  bears  witness  by  the  Scriptures  which  he 
inspired,  by  the  hearts  which  lie  renew  s  ; — the  wa^er  of  Baptism 
witnesses  the  necessity  and  tlie  certainty  of  sanctification  ; — and 
the  Blood,  or  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  certainty  and  the  mode  of 
Justification.  We  are  told  in  tlie  6th  verse  that  Jesus  *^  came  by 
water  and  by  blood,"  that  is,  witli  a  view  to  cleanse  his  church 
from  pollution  and  atone  for  her  sins.  These  two  great  ob  jects  of 
his  coming  ai*e  clearly  certified  to  all  the  world  by  Baptism  and 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Wliile  these  tw^o  ordinances  continue  to  be 
celebrated,  Christ  will  never  want  two  faithful  xvitrnesses  to  the 
two  leading  parts  of  his  salvation, — Justification  and  Sanctifi- 
cation— Now  if  all  the  world  were  Friends,  two  of  these  wit- 
nesses, if  not  the  third  w  ould  be  banished  from  the  world  ! 

liASTLY  ;  that  the  Apostles  never  changed  either  tlieir  views 
or  practice  on  this  subject,  but  left  the  w  hole  church  in  the  prac- 
tice of  this  ordinance,  is  evident  from  the  Testimony  of  the  early 
Fathers,^\H  we  have  no  particular  dispute  on  tlie  subject  of  In- 
fant  Baptism,  1  regret  tliat  the  passages  most  in  point  will  neces- 
saj-ily  bring  this  into  view..   It  will  be  admitted  bv  all  that  Iv^ 


104 


fant  baptism  must  have  been  water  baptism.  If  therefore  ihv. 
former  was  universal,  so  was  tlie  latter.  I  have  room  for  only  a 
few  passages.  The  "  Apostolic  Constitutions"  say  Baptize 
your  infants  and  instruct  them  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
the  Lord."  Origen,  **  Infants  also  are  by  the  usage  of  the 
church  baptized.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  The  church  received  a  document  or  order  from  the  Apos- 
tles to  give  baptism  to  infants."  Fidtts,  a  bishop  in  Africa, 
wrote  to  Cypiiian  inquiring  whether  it  were  right  to  baptize 
children  hefor  eight  (\ivys  old  ?"  Cyprian  proposed  the  question 
in  a  Council  of  sixty-six  Bisho])s,  and  afterwards  wrote, 
not  a  single  bishop  agreed  with  you, — the  spiritual  circumci- 
sion is  not  to  be  restricted  by  that  wliich  is  according  to  the 
flesh, — ^but  an  infant  may  be  baptized  immediately  after  its 
birth,"  &c.  Augustine,  speaking  of  the  above  letter  of  Cy- 
prian, says  it  was  No  new  decree,  but  the  established  faith  of 
the  church,'^  And  again,  he  never  heard  of  any  Christian 
whether  Catholic  or  Sectary  that  denied  Infants  were  to  be  bap- 
tized for  the  remission  of  sins," — that  the  Palagians  are  unable 
to  contravene  the  autliority  of  the  whole  church,  derived  beyond 
doubt  from  our  Lord  and  his  apostles."  Once  more,  Celestius 
and  Pelagius,  two  men  of  great  talents,  learning  and  acquaint- 
ance with  the  churches  in  Asia,  Africa  and  Europe,  were  ar- 
raigned for  heresy,  and  charged  with  denying  original  sin,  the 
corruption  of  Infants^  &c.  and  were  much  puzzled  by  this  Ques- 
tion, If  infants  are  not  polluted,  why  are  they  by  the  usage 
of  the  universal  church,  baptized  ?"  Some  accused  tliem  of  de- 
nying infant  baptism.  They  repelled  the  charge.  Celestius 
acknowledged  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized  according  to 
tiie  rule  of  the  universal  churchJ'^  Pelagius  said  that  men 
slandered  him  as  though  he  denied  the  sacrament  of  baj)tism  to 
infants,"  and  affirms  that  he  never  heard  of  any,  not  even 
the  most  impious  heretics,  that  could  say  such  a  thing  of  infants." 
— Sucli  quotations  miglit  be  multiplied  indefinitely  ;  but  tliese 
are  sufficient  to  prove  the  early  and  universal  prevalence  of  wat- 
er baptism. 

On  this  subject  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say ;  but  as  the  dis- 
cussion has  already  been  protracted  :  as  Amicus  seems  inclined 
to  cease ;  as  we  are  now  even  in  the  number  of  essays,  and  as 
we  have  many  other  subjects  to  discuss  if  Amiens  enters  on  a 
new  si^bject.  I  sliall  in  my  next  proceed  to  consider  and  confirm 
the  authority  of  the  Lonl's  Supper. 

PAUL. 


LETTER  XII. 

At  the  close  of  my  last  Essay  on  the  subject  of  Water  Bap- 
tism, I  expressed  my  intention  of  introducing  to  my  reader,  at 
this  time,  another  object  for  his  considei-ation  and  judgment.  I 
had  no  other  reason  for  changing  the  subject  than  a  fear  lest  his 
attention  might  be  wearied  by  a  protracted  discussion  of  it.  As 
Respondent,  however,  it  will  be  expected  that  I  should  aiiswer 
all  my  opponent's  objections — and  as  **Paul"  has  again  appear- 
ed against  the  doctrines  I  defend,  I  should  hardly  be  excused 
were  I  to  leave  unanswered  any  argument,  however  weak  or 
inapplicable  to  the  points  at  issu  I  shall  therefore  be  compell- 
ed to  follow  him  througli  his  various  windings,  and  to  attempt 
the  removal  of  any  obstruction  to  the  clear  discovery  of  Gospel 
truth. 

[t  is  truly  curious  to  observe  the  various  maneuvers  of  my 
opponent  to  establish  the  use  of  outward  ordinances  (the  pecu- 
liar characteristics  of  the  Mosaic  law)  in  the  Christian  church, 
to  see  how  closely  he  adheres  to  the  typical  shadowy  ceremonies 
of  preceding  dispensations,  how  anxiously  he  labours  to  engraft 
a  Carnal  Rite  *•  on  the  Gospel  stock."  If  in  this  attempt  he 
were  forced  to  depend  on  the  doctrines  of  the  New  Testament 
for  support,  his  case  would  be  desperate  ;  he  has  therefore  fled 
to  Doddridge,  Pyle,  Campbell,  Scott,  Henry,  Parkhurst,  and 
Gill  for  succour! — authors  of  no  more  authority  with  me  than  the 
writers  of  the  C  hurch  of  Rome  are  with  my  opponent.  In  his  last 
communication  he  flies  to  the  Apostolic  constitutions"  as  they 
are  falsely  called — tlie  spurious  production  of  some  nameless 
writer,  a  woi  k  unknown  to  Ireneus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  Cyprian,  Eusebirs,  or  any  other  writer  of  the  three  first 
centuries.  Dr.  Lardner  tliinks  they  were  composed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fifth  century  :      the' author,"  says  the  Doctor, 

was  probably  a  Bishop  of  a  proud  and  haughty  spirit,  wiio 
was  fond  of  Church  power,  and  loved  pjuip  and  ceremony  in 
religious  worship."  This  may  explain  the  reason  why  my  op- 
ponent so  much  relies  on  their  authority.  Like  a  drowning  man 
he  catches  at  every  straw  that  floats  in  his  way  ;  but  in  this  case 
his  dependence  is  delusive — they  have  not  sutticient  buoyancy  to 
sustain  their  own  w  eight,  amf  the  probability  is  they  and  the 
cause  of  my  opponent  must  sink  togetlier. 

But  why  any  believer  »*  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  sa- 
ered  volume,"  should  resort  to  inferior  aid  for  support,  is  some- 
what mysterious  !  Why  desert  '*  the  only  and  sunreme  ^tr.nd- 
ard  of  religious  truth  ?"  Has  "  Paul's" 'faith  in  tliis  standard 
deserted  him  ?  Can  Cyprian."  Augustine,"  and  **  a  Couu- 
14 


106 


cil  of  Bishops,"  add  any  weight  to  the  testimony  of  the  inspii*- 
ed  penmen  ?  Can  a  Candle"  add  any  light  to  the  Sun  ?"  Can 
the  dark,  contentious,  contradictory  authors  of  an  Apostatized 
church,  elucidate  or    direct  the  decisions  of  Infinite  Wisdom  ?" 

I  have  read,  with  some  attention,  the  history  of  the  Church 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  dow  n  to  the  present  time.  1  have 
considered  the  various  opinions  of  ecclesiastical  writers  as  de- 
livered hy  the  best  historians — and  I  will  venture  to  assert,  that 
such  a  mass  of  confusion  and  contradiction  as  their  opinions  ex-^ 
hibit,  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  department  of  literature — the 
confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel  could  not  possibly  exceed  it — 
there  are  not  two  of  the  Fathers,  as  they  are  termed,  who  are  of 
the  same  opini(ms.  Division,  contention  and  bloodshed  mark 
their  footsteps — their  writings  are  much  better  calculated  to 
make  infidels  than  christians ;  a  man  should  either  be  much  pre- 
judiced in  their  favour,  or  well  established  in  the  principles  of 
vital  piety,  who  ventures  to  read  them.  A  more  melancholy  pic- 
ture of  poor  human  nature,  can  hardly  be  produced,  than  that 
whicli  is  exhibited  in  the  members  of  the  church  for  the  first 
thirteen  centuries  succeeding  the  Apostolic  age.  Under  this 
view  of  the  subject  it  is  no  matter  of  wonder  that  enlightened 
christians  should  place  little  reliance  on  their  judgment  or  au- 
thority ; — one  plain  Scripture  text  outweighs  the  authority  of 
them  all. 

I  will  now  advert  to  tlie  particular  positions  of  my  opponent 
as  exhibited  in  his  last  address  to  us. 

He  tells  us  tliat  '*  those  who  say,  that  the  word  Baptism,  in 
our  Lord's  Commission,  is  tliere  used  in  an  uncommon  or  extra- 
ordinary sense,  are  bound  in  the  first  place,  to  prove  their  bold 
assertion."  Now  I  would  ask,  who  has  ever  said  so  ?  I  did  not 
say  the  word  Baptism  is  here  used  in  an  uncommon  or  extraor- 
dinary sense.  The  word  Baptism  in  the  new  Testament  is  very 
commonly  used  to  imply  the  purifying  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  this  is  indeed  its  most  important  meaning,  it  is  used  in 
this  sense  more  than  thirty  times — any  other  meaning  of  the 
word  is  of  no  more  value  in  comparison  of  tliis,  than  the  shadow 
of  a  man  is  in  comparison  of  the  man  : — this  was  certainly  the 
opinion  of  the  Apostles  in  the  latter  periods  of  the  Apostolic 
age,  else,  how  can  we  account  for  the  fact,  that  in  none  of  their 
Epistles  they  ever  recommended  Water  Baptism,  never  spoke 
one  word  in  its  favour,  never  exhorted  their  brethren  to  use  it, 
or  promote  it  in  any  way  whatever — but  when  in  two  or  thre^ 
instances  they  alluded  to  it,  spoke  in  a  w  ay  calculated  to  discour- 
age them  from  the  use  of  it,  as  my  former  Essays  prove  indubit- 
ably. Now  I  will  ask  one  question,  if  the  Apostles  had  believed 
that  water  Baptism  was  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  commanded  by 


lor 

Iiim  to  be  observed  in  his  Church,  why  did  they  in  their  Epis- 
tles to  the  Churches  never  press  the  use  of  it — never  exhort  their 
brethren  to  remember  the  command?  there  is  no  other  Christian 
duty  that  they  did  not  excite  them  to  tlie  performance  of,  over 
and  over  again  ; — tlie  answer  is  plain,  they  neither  considered 
it  a  duty,  nor  of  any  importance  in  the  Church,  and  therefore 
when  they  spoke  of  it  they  spoke  to  its  disparagement. 

Again,  my  opponent  tells  us  that  we  are  bound  to  prove 
that  the  Apostles  were  mistaken  in  interpreting  their  master's 
mind  and  will"  respecting  this  carnal  ordinance.  Now  I  am 
very  certain  that  they  never  were  mistaken  on  this  point — that 
they  never  understood  him  to  command  Water  Baptism.  I 
have  proved  by  the  text  that  he  did  not  do  so — tbatthe  Baptism 
he  commanded  was  an  essential  baptism,  which  Water  Baptism 
is  not,  according  to  Paul's"  own  confession — and  to  prove 
that  tiie  Apostles  did  not  understand  their  Lord  to  command 
Water  Baptism  in  a  new  name,  or  with  a  new  form  of  words,  1 
'  have  shewn  that  they  never  baptized  tlieir  converts  afterwards 
"  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  which  they  must  have  done  if  they  had  so  understood 
him.  In  answer  to  the  first  point,  he  has  brought  no  Scripture 
evidence  to  disprove  it,  and  to  the  second  he  has  made  no  reply 
at  all — he  has  from  motives  of  policy  avoided  it,  well  knowing 
that  the  Scriptures  could  afford  him  no  assistance.  Now  he 
ought  to  have  been  very  particular  on  these  points,  as  on  them 
hang  the  great  question  "  whether  Water  Baptism  is  an  institu- 
tion of  Christ  or  not." 

In  the  next  place  my  opponent  tells  us,  that  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  the  great  day  of  Spiritual  Baptism — the  day  in  which 
our  Lord's  prediction  was  so  ^^markably  fulfilled.  Acts  i.  5. 
*^  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost" — that  on  this  day,  ^*  when  the  Apostles 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  began  to  speak  with 
other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance,  Peter,  standing 
up  with  the  eleven  spoke  and  said,  Repent  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you /or  the  remission  of  sins^  and  ye  shall  receive  the  Gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost — then  they  that  gladly  received  the  w  ord  were 
baptised,  and  the  same  day  tliere  was  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."  From  all  this  Paul"  infers  that  be- 
cause it  *'  is  no  man's  duty  (as  he  says)  to  command  any  one  to 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  therefore,  they  were  baptized 
with  water. 

On  this  subject  I  will  observe  that  Paul's"  logic  in  the  case 
is  not  very  logical — because,  his  whole  conclusion  hangs  upon 
this  assumption  **that  it  is  no  man's  duty  to  command  any  one 
te  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghosf'—but  as  he  has  given  us  no 


ground  for  tliis  opinion,  I  shall  deny  his  position.  I  can  con- 
ceive no  reason  why  it  is  not  as  much  the  duty  of  a  Gospel  min- 
ister, one  who  is  filled  too  witls  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  command  his 
hearers  to  he  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  as  it  is  to  command 
them  to  repent : — Repentance  is  as  much  the  gilt  of  God,  as 
Spiritual  Baptism  is — hoth  are  equally  out  of  tlie  power  of  man 
unassisted  hy  divine  grace,  and  therefoie  they  stand  upon  pre- 
cisely the  same  ground. 

But  there  is  one  exjiression  in  tliis  exhortation  of  the  Apostle 
Peter  that  irrefutably  pi  OA  es  he  meant  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit — **  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  ofyou  for  the  re- 
mission OF  SINS."  Now  I  can  hardly  suppose  that  there  is  any 
Christian  in  tine  present  day  w  lio  can  seriously  believe  that  re- 
mission of  sins  is  obtained  by  Wafer  Baptism — it  would  be  little 
short  of  blasphemy  to  assert  it — my  opponent,  however,  dare 
not  take  this  ground  : — Remission  of  sins  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion— which  Water  Baptism  is  not,  as  lie  has  already  granted. 
The  fair  conclusion  is  that  the  Baptism  Peter  commanded  is  not 
the  Baptism  of  Water. 

There  is  anotlier  circumstance  tliat  gives  strong  additional 
evidence  that  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  was  not  Water 
Baptism — This  great  multitude  were  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time 
of  their  baptism,  and  there  was  no  stream  of  Water  within  sev- 
eral miles  of  the  city  sufficientl\  deep  to  immerse  them — there- 
fore (unless  indeed  they  were  Sprinkled  ! ! !)  they  were  not  bap- 
tized with  water.  The  idea  that  they  underwent  a  sprinkling 
is  too  ludicrous  to  need  a  serious  refutation — sprinkling  is  not 
mentioned  by  any  author,  until  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
this  period,  when  the  Cliurch  w  as  reduced  to  the  most  humiliat- 
ing depravity. 

The  next  assertion  of  my  opponent  that  is  entitled  to  notice, 
is  where  he  contradicts  the  positive  language  of  the  Apostle, 
♦^Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel,"  1 
Cor.  i.  17.  His  argument  on  this  point  is  any  thing  but  rational 
^he  says  '*the  Apostle  after  he  found  it  an  occasion  of  party  spi- 
rit, performed  it  by  the  hands  of  others." — Now  this  assertion  is 
jiot  only  unsupported  by  the  least  testimony,  and  therefore  un- 
worthy of  tlie  least  regard — but  if  it  w  ere  true  w  ould  show  the 
Apostle  to  be  a  very  incompetent  judge  of  human  nature — be- 
cause to  baptize  them  by  proxy  would  not  remove  the  diflicult>  — 
it  is  a  maxim  that  **  what  the  principal  does  by  the  agency  of 
another  he  does  himself," — and  conse(|uently  the  temptation  of 
these  weak  Corinthians  to  say  1  am  of  Paul"  would  not  be 
removed  ! 

Paul's"  attempt  to  extricate  himself  from  the  awkward  sit». 
ttation  in  w^hich  he  is  involrcd  on  the  subject  of  Apostolic  Injalli' 


109 


tilifif  is  better  calculated  to  call  forth  compassion  for  the  writer* 
thari  commendation  for  his  ingenuity — his  last  Essay  has  left 
the  Apostles  charged  witli  a  much  more  exceptionable  kind  of 
fallibility  than  Amicus  ever  imputed  to  them.  Paul"  first  de- 
clares that  he  never  m  a  single  instance  admitted  their  fallibili- 
ty I"  that  •*  they  must  have  been  perfectly  infallible'' — he  ap- 
peals to  the  public  if  it  is  not  tlie  manifest  object  of  his  last  Es- 
say to  prove  they  never  erred  in  judgment." — After  this  appeal 
to  tlie  public  (vviio  I  think  will  not  find  much  difficulty  to  decide 
in  the  case)  lie  now  admits  that  '*tlirough  the  weakness  of  the 

;  flesh  t/iey  occasionally  acted  contrary  to  their  judgment.'' — Now  if 
I  have  any  just  idea  of  the  nature  of  liuman  actions,  that  is  a 
far  more  culpable  s]K  cics  of  fallibility  which  acts  contrary  to  the 
judgment  than  that  which  prodiices  an  erroneous  action  in  con- 

i  formity  with  the  judgment !  The  latter  involves  no  moral  re- 
spo?isibility,  at  all — the  former  does. — If  they  taught  others  by 
example  to  act  contrary  to  their  judgment  they  could  not  be 

-  very  **  infallible  teaciiers."  ''Paul"  defends  theiv  judgment 
at  the  expense  of  their  integrity. 

'*  Paul"  has  set  the  excellent  and  venerable  Apostles  of  our 
blessed  Lord  in  so  unfavourable  a  light  that  I  think  it  necessary 

I    by  repeating  my  former  sentiments  to  vindicate  their  character 

!  — •*  Amicus's"  views  as  expressed  in  his  former  Essays,  wei*e, 
that  as  they  had  been  educated  in  the  forms  of  an  exterior  wor- 
ship, and  as  through  their  whole  lives  they  had  been  accustom- 

I  ed  to  tlie  use  of  carnal  ordinances,  t!iey  did  not  suddenly  per- 
ceive tlieir  inconsistency  w^ith  t!ie  spiritual  nature  of  the  new 
Covenant  dispensation — but  that  as  they  advanced  in  religious 

i  experience  they  gradually  discovered  their  impotcncy  and  the 
powerful  effects  of  the  Holy  Spirit — that  thus  they  were  pre- 
pared not  only  to  lay  them  aside,  but  to  hold  up  a  testimony  to 
their  weakness  and  inefficiency.  I  have  never  impeached  their 
integrity. 

The  next  point  my  opponent  attempts  to  prove  is  that  TFater 
I    Baptism  is  not  John's  Baptism  ;  his  inconsistency  in  this  case  w  ith 
\    the  uniform  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  is  very  remarkable — 
John  himself  refutes  him  :    "  I  indeed  ha^^e  baptized  you  with 
Water^  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Mark  i. 
8.    Now  if  we  were  to  admit  that  Water  Baptism  were  a  bap- 
tisjn  of  Christ — then  Christ  would  have  two  distinct  baptisms* 
!    contrary  to  the  express  language  of  the  Apostle,  Eph.  iv.  4.  5. 
1    *'There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one 
I    hope  of  your  calling — one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God 
and  Father  of  all.  w  ho  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you 
all."    Now  as  I  observed  in  a  former  Essay,  "  Paul"  can  as 
easily  prove  that  to  the  Christian  there  are  two  Gods,  two  Lords, 


116 


two  faiths,  as  he  ean  prove  that  we  ought  to  suhmit  to  two  hap-' 
tisms. 

Paul"  next  endeavours  to  prove  from  the  conversation  of 
our  Lord  with  N  icodemus  that  the  kingdom  of  God  spoken  of  in 
the  text  means  nothing  more  than  the  visible  Church — in  this  he 
not  (mly  contradicts  the  plain  meaning  of  the  passage,  hut  op- 
poses all  the  writers  on  the  subject  that  I  have  ever  met  with — 
^'Except  a  man  be  horn  again,  he  cannot  seethe  kingdom  of 
God." — now  I  suppose  that  any  unregenerate  man  who  lias  good 
eyes,  can  see  the  visible  Church.  The  idea  that  water  baptism 
is  a  badge"  of  church  membership  is  one  of  "  Paul's"  curious 
notions  which  has  neither  Scripture  nor  reason  to  support  it — a 

Badge"  is  some  distinguishing  mark,  visible  to  the  eye,  and 
affixed  to  the  object  to  be  designated — but  Water  Baptism  is  ad- 
ministered but  once  in  a  man's  life — it  makes  no  change  in  the 
shape  of  his  body,  and  he  cannot  wear  it  about  him  as  a  mark 
of  distinction  !  Tlie  New  Testament  writers  have  never  given 
us  one  word  on  the  subject  of  its  Badgeship, 

In  the  next  place  he  asserts  that  **  the  Apostles  speak  of  Water 
Baptism  as  an  important  means  of  Salvation."  As  this  asser- 
tion depends  for  its  proof  on  texts  which  mean  to  convey  no  such 
idea,  some  of  which  I  have  proved  in  this  and  a  former  Essay  to 
be  applicable  exclusively  to  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  1 
need  not  in  this  place  pursue  this  branch  of  the  subject  further, 
than  to  say,  tlmt  I  deny  Water  Baptism  to  be  in  any  degree  a  means 
of  Salvation, — as  a  religious  act  it  is  perfectly  useless.  His 
whole  argument  on  this  point  is  beneath  criticism — to  say  that 

tlie  Spirit  and  Water  and  Blood  agree  in  one,"  and  that  this 
Water  is  elementary  Water  is  so  contradictory  to  common  sense 
and  reason,  that  I  wonder  my  opponent  should  ^nturc  to  expose 
such  a  sentiment.    See  1.  John  v.  8. 

It  is  a  very  important  question  in  the  present  discussion 

Whether  Water  Baptism  be  conformable  to  the  nature  of  the 
Gospel  dispensation,"  because  we  cannot  suppose  our  Lord 
would  command  the  observance  of  any  Rite  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  his  own  administration.  Paul  says,  he  is 
willing  to  leave  that  question  to  be  discussed  by  '  Amicus'  with 
our  Lord  and  his  Apostles."  I  am  very  glad  that  my  opponent 
is  at  length  willing  to  submit  to  Apostolic  judgment.  Let  us 
hear  then  what  the  Apostle  says  of  Water  washings  and  carnal 
ordinances.  This  subject  he  handles  with  great  perspicuity  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  from  which  I  will  quote  two  short 
passages  for  the  settlement  of  this  point. 

Then  verily  the ^rs^  Covenant  had  also  ordinances  of  divine 

service,  and  a  worldly  sanctuary,  kc.  which  was  a  figure  for 
"  the  time  then  present  in  which  were  offered  both  gifts  and  sac- 


Ill 


<*  rifices  that  could  not  make  him  that  did  the  service  perfect  as 
"pertaining  to  the  conscience,  which  stood  only  in  meats  and 
I      drinks  and  divers  washings  and  carnal  oi'dinances  imposed  on 
them  until  the  time  of  reformation."    Here  he  describes  the 
nature  of  the  ordinances  appertaining  to  the  first  covenant.  In 
the  same  Epistle,  quoting  the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  he  describes 
the  nature  of  the  second  covenant  or  Gospel  dispensation  in  re- 
markably clear  terms — **For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will 
"  make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saitli  the  Lord 
« — I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind  and  write  them  in  their 
^*  hearts,  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  sliall  be  to  me  a 
"people."' — Now,"  says  the  Apostle  to  the  Galatians,  after 
that  ye  have  known  God,  or  rather  are  known  of  God,  how 
**  turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements  whereunto  ye 
desire  again  to  be  in  bondage — are  ye  so  foolish- — having  be- 
^*gun  in  the  spirit,  are  ye  now  made  perfect  by  the  ^'flesh,'^ 
Heb.  viii.  ix.  Gal.  iii.  iv. — I  cannot  suppose  it  necessary  to 
'  make  any  comment  on  these  passages — they  not  only  point  out 
the  Covenant  to  which  carnal  ordinances  belong — but  they 
clearly  discover  the  nature  of  the  glorious  dispensation  under 
w  hich  we  now  live. 

It  will  be  seen  by  what  has  been  said  in  the  fore  part  of  this 
Essay  that  in  doctrinal  points,  I  place  very  little  confidence  on 
the  opinions  of  those  called  the  "  early  Fathers."    They  were 
miserably  divided  in  sentiment — without  the  aid  of  divine  in- 
spiration it  is  impossible  to  discover  the  truth  in  the  heteroge- 
neous medley  of  their  doctrines.    Even  in  the  second  century 
they  greatly  corrupted  the  simplicity  of  the  Cliristian  religion 
by  mixing  with  its  doctrines  the  dark  opinions  of  the  Egyptian, 
Grecian  and  oriental  Philosophy. — "  Mosheim,"  speaking  of 
the  state  of  the  church  at  this  time  says  ^*  In  this  century  many 
unnecessary  Rites  and  Ceremonies  were  added  to  the  Chris- 
I   **tian  worship.    These  changes  while  they  destroyed  the  beau- 
1   "  tiful  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  were  naturally  pleasing  to  the 
"  gross  multitude  who  are  more  delighted  with  the  pomp  and 
splendour  of  external  institutions  than  with  the  native  charms 
"  of  rational  and  solid  piety — Both  Jews  and  Heathens  were  ac- 
I      customed  to  a  vast  variety  of  pompous  and  magnificent  Cer- 
I   **emonics  in  their  religious  service.    And  as  they  considered 
these  rites  an  essential  part  of  religion,  it  was  but  natural  that 
*^  they  should  behold  with  indifference  and  even  with  contempt 
I       the  simplicity  of  the  Christian  worship,  which  was  dest  itute  of 
I       those  idle  ceremonies  that  rendered  their  service  so  specious 
( !      and  striking  :  To  remove  then  in  some  measure  this  prejudice 
"against  Christianity  the  Bishops  tiiought  it  necessary  to  m- 
"  crease  the  number  of  rites  and  ceremonies  and  by  this  means  io 


*^  render  the  publick  worship  more  striking  to  the  outward  sen- 
ses." — Thus  we  see  that  even  in  this  eai'ly  period  the  Pastors 
of  the  Church  abandoned  tfie  plain  doctrines  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles— and  a  cloud  of  gross  darkness  overspread  the  world, 
the  baneful  influence  of  which  is  still  extensively  felt  in  the  per- 
petuation of  vain  lifeless  forms  and  shadowy  ceremonies,  leading 
the  attention  of  the  people  from  inward  vital  piety  to  the  pomp- 
ous but  ineffectual  institutions  of  abrogated  laws,  or  of  an  apos- 
tatized age.  As  to  Infant  Baptism  it  rests  on  the  sandy  foun- 
dation of  human  tradition  without  one  word  of  Scripture  to  prop 
the  useless  fabrick. 

AMICUS. 

Saturday^  Sept.  ip,  I8ZT, 

LETTER  XI. 

ox  BAPTISM. 

Though  I  am  not  aware  of  any  rightful  claim  which  Amicus 
may  have  to  write  more  numbers  on  this,  or  any  other  subject, 
than  myself,  I  should  be  very  willing  for  ought  that  appears  in 
his  last  Essay,  to  leave  the  four  numbers  I  have  written  to 
stand  against  his  five.  But  there  are  two  or  tliree  objections 
advanced  in  former  Essays  and  renewed  in  this,  which  ought 
perhaps  to  be  answered  more  at  large.  After  advancing  a  few 
more  ideas  in  answer  to  these,  I  shall  leave  this  subject  with 
you  and  the  public,  with  full  consent  that  your  friend  should 
write  as  frequently  and  as  voluminously  as  he  please.  His  ar- 
guments are  evidently  exhausted,  and  no  judicious  person  will 
measure  the  strength  of  an  argument  by  the  number  of  words* 
His  last  is  the  desperate  effwt  of  a  dying  man.  Goaded  and  in- 
furiated by  tlie  command  of  Christ,  the  practice  of  the  Ajlostles, 
the  unequivocal  language  of  the  whole  New  Testament,  follow- 
ed by  the  testimony  of  the  Fatliers,  he  has  nothing  to  do  but 
madly     kick  against  the  pricks." 

In  his  desperation,  he  not  only  denies  that  the  Apostles  prac- 
tised water  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  and  that  baptism 
§ommnnly  in  Scripture,  signifies  an  outward  rite  ;  but  he  denies 
that  Doddridge,  Pyle,  Campbell,  Scott,  Henry,  Parkhurst  and 
Gill,  are  of  any  authority  as  critics,  or  the  Fathers  as  witnesses 
to  a  plain  fact!  Yea,  more  than  this,  he  labours  to  destroy  or 
nullify  the  church  of  Christ  for  1300  years  !!  As  he  foresees  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Fathers  will  not  only  on  this,  but  many 
future  subjects,  be  a  severe  thorn  in  his  side,  he  makes  a  despe- 
rate elfort  to  set  the  whole  aside  ai;  once.    He  says  they  were 


115 


miserably  divided  in  sentiment."'  If  so,  it  will  be  easy  ioi 
him  to  show  they  wei'e  divided  on  water  baptism.  Let  him  try 
it.  I  challenge  him  to  produce  ove  Father,  within  the  first  four 
centuries,  who  was  of  a  different  opiilion  from  tliose  I  have  quot- 
ed. He  says,  *•  no  two  were  of  the  same  opinion."  In  my  last 
I  quoted  more  than  serentij,  all  agreeing  in  water  baptism,  and 
I  could  easily  quote  as  many  more.  He  calls  the  church  in  her 
first  and  purest  ages  "  an  apostatized  church.-'  says  tliat  within 
*•  one  hundred  and  fifty  yeai^*'  after  Christ,  she  was  : educed  to 
a  state  of  humiliating  depravity."  Reader,  Christian,  can 
you  suppress  your  indignation  !  This  was  the  church,  and  these 
tlie  leaders  that  faced  the  ten  Imperial  Persecutions — that  laid 
down  their  lives  by  hundreds  of  thousands  for  the  gospel  of 
Christ — that  without  a  sword  or  carnal  weapon,  by  mere  dint  of 
piety,  patience  and  perseverance,  swept  their  enemies  from  the 
Roman  empire,  and  conquered  the  then  known  world  !  In  short, 
tliese  were  the  Martyrs  so  often  referred  to,  wjiose  **  blood  was 
le  seed  of  the  church."  Now  if  the  success  of  the  Apostles  is 
any  proof  of  their  piety,  and  the  truth  of  their  cause,  tlie  success 
uf  the  Fathers  and  Christians  of  the  first  four  centuries,  (later 
than  which  I  have  not  quoted)  is  a  proof  they  were  no  aposta- 
tized church."  The  first  preachers  of  the  gospel,  after  the  Apos- 
tles, were  not  generally  learned,  but  it  is  cruel  to  doubt  they 
were  pious  men.  AVhile  therefore  w  e  do  not  receive  them  as  au- 
thority in  their  e^vpositions  of  doctrine^  we  have  perfect  confidence 
in  them  as  honest  witnesses  of  fad.  The  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions," it  is  generally  supposed,  wei^  written  at  the  close  of  the 
Second,  or  in  tlie  commencement  of  the  Third  century,  and  have 
been  received  as  autliority  by  tlie  greatest  men.  Grotius  (vriiose 
learning  Amicus  may  doubt,  if  he  please.)  received  them  as  au- 
thority, and  quotes  the  very  passage  quoted  by  myself.  The 
unanimous  testimony  of  tiiese  good  men  to  the  universal  preva- 
lence  of  water  baptism  in  those  earlij  times,  is  pi'oof  irresistible, 
if  any  more  is  wanted,  that  neither  Paul,  nor  Peter,  nor  any  one 
of  the  Apostles  ever  c/2fl«.fe(f  their  mind,  but  practised  and  re- 
i  ommended  this  ordinance  to  the  day  of  their  death. 

The  next  bold  objection  of  Amicus,  is  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  *•  baptize."  He  denies  that  it  commonly  signifies  an  out- 
ward rite,  **  but  very  commonly  {l\\?Lt  is,  more  than  commonly) 
implies  the  purifying  opei'ationof  the  Holy  Spirit."  Now  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  it  sometimes  •*  implies"  regeneration,  but 
I  deny  that  this  is  its  common  or  proper  meaning.  Whenever 
it  signifies  a  change  of  heart,  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  or  the 
communication  of  miraculous  gifts,  it  is  ridiculous  to  deny  tiiat 
it  is  used  in  a  fgurative^  and  what  grammarians  call,  an  im- 
proper sense.  To  show  in  what  sense  it  is  used  in  Scripture,  I 
15 


114 


w  ill  quote  a  few  who  were  as  well  acquainted  with  the  meaning 
of  the  words  they  used,  as  any  of  their  opponents.  1.  Matthew 
calls  John  the  Baptist's  rite,  which  was  undoubtedly  with  water, 
haptisnif  ilu  6,  2.  Mark  does  the  same,  i.  4.  3.  Luke,  Acts 
viii.  16.  says,  "  For  as  yet  the  Holy  Ghost  was  fallen  upon  none 
of  them,  only  they  were  baptized,^^  4.  Philip  went  down  into 
the  water  and  baptized  the  Eunuch,  Acts  viii.  38.  5.  Peter, 
Acts  X.  47  :  after  the  Holy  Ghost  had  fallen  on  the  centurion 
and  his  company,  says,  who  can  forbid  water,  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized.'^  6.  Paul,  1  Cor.  i.  17.  says,  **  Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,"  and  in  chap.  xv.  29.  he  speaks  of  their 
being  '^baptized  for  tlie  dead  and  in  Heb.  x.  10.  he  calls  the 
sprinkling  and  washing  of  the  old  dispensation  "  divers  bap- 
tisms,"  (Greek)  And  lastly,  John  in  his  Gospel,  written  at 
least  sixty  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  uses  the  word  in  th« 
same  sense,  John  iii.  22,  23,  26.  iv.  1. 

Amicus  is  pleased  to  say,  he  can  produce  **more  than  Thirty'' 
instances  where  it  is  used  figuratively  for  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  If  he  could  produce  a  hundred,  it  would  be  of 
no  avail,  unless  he  could  prove  that  this  was  its  common  Siud  pro- 
per sense,  and  that  it  was  so  used  by  our  Lord  in  his  commission. 
But  so  far  from  this,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  passages  in 
which  it  is  used  for  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  for  miraculous 
gifts,  out  of  Eighty  passages,  lie  cannot  produce  Ten  in  which 
it  even  alludes  io  or  implies"  the  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  and 
of  passages  in  which  it  is  used  exclusively  for  spiritual  baptism, 
he  cannot  produce  one  !  The  texts  to  whicli  he  will  at  once  re- 
fer, are  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  Gal.  iii.  27.  Rom.  vi.  3.  1  Peter  iii. 
21.  in  all  which  texts  baptism  is  used  in  a  literal  as  well  SLsJigu- 
rative  sense.  The  first  is  your  favoi  ite  text.  **  By  one  spirit 
we  arc  all  baptized  into  one  body."  This  "  one  body"  is  the 
church  visible  and  invisible.  By  baj)tism  with  water  we  are 
introduced  into  union  with  the  former  ;  by  baptism  with  the 
Spirit,  into  union  with  the  latter.  The  one  is  a  type  of  the  other. 
The  meaning  of  Gal.  iii.  27.  is  the  same.  As  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  Baptism  is 
here  also  used  in  two  senses,  a  literal  and  a  figurative.  As 
many  as  have  received  outward  baptism,  have  put  on  Christ 
outwardly  or  made  a  profession  of  Chiist ;  as  many  as  have 
been  baptized  into  his  Spirit,  have  put  him  on  inwardly,  or  re- 
ceived his  image  on  their  hearts.  I  have  quoted  these  favoi'ite 
passages  of  yours  to  show  that  in  these  also,  there  is  a  reference 
to  the  external  rite  ;  and  secondly,  to  show  the  use  of  Baptism 
as  an  external  bond  of  union,  a  profession  of  Christ,  and  a  badge 
of  discipleship. 

The  next  bold  objection  which  he  makes,  and  one  in  which  he 


115 


surpasses  all  his  predecessors,  and  shows  him  self  a  perfect  hero 
ill  contradiction,  is  that  the  Apostles  did  not  practise  water  bap- 
tism on  the  day  of  Pentecost !  I  know  not  what  he  will  deny  next, 
unless  it  be,  that  John  the  Baptist  used  water  !  It  is  not  enough 
that  the  Apostles,  on  that  occasion,  distinguished  between  bap- 
tism and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  :  not  enough  that  they  af- 
terwards explained  their  own  meaning  in  tlie  cases  of  the  Eu- 
nuch, Centurion,  and  others,  when  water  is  expressly  mention- 
ed— he  will  have  it  they  did  not  baptize  with  water,  because 

there  was  no  stream  of  water  within  several  miles  deep  enough 
to  immerse  them  !  !*'  And  because  there  was  no  **  stream  of 
water"  near  Samaria,  nor  in  the  Centurion's  house,  nor  in  the 
Jail  of  Philippi,  we  are,  I  suppose,  to  infer  there  was  no  water 
baptism  in  any  of  these  places  ! — To  me  it  seems  that  had  the 
water  been  poured  upon  them,  it  would  have  been  quite  as  ex- 
pressive of  the  outpouring  of  the  spirit,  as  plunging  them  all 
over  in  water.  (How  Amicus  can  consistently  contend  that 
baptism  means  immersion  all  over  in  water,  and  yet  has  no  allu- 
sion to  water,  I  submit  to  tbe  reader.) 

But  he  has  discovered  another  argument  of  still  greater  force, 
they  w*ere  baptized  ^*/or  the  remission  of  .si?is,"  and  no  Christian 
will  say  that  remission  of  sins  is  obtained  by  water  baptism." 
This  he  thinks  conclusive.  I  would  ask  if  remission  of  sins  is 
obtained  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  ?  certainly  not ;  remission 
of  sins  is  granted  Jirst,  and  then  the  Holy  Ghost  is  bestowed. — 
God  pardons  the  rebel,  before  he  adopts  the  cliild.  Again,  I 
ask  why  is  John^s  baptism  called  the  ^'baptism  of  repentance 
Acts  xiii.  23.  xix.  4.  Did  it  obtain  repentance? — Everyone 
may  see  that  the  reason  why  it  is  so  called  is,  that  it  was  a  pro- 
fession of  repentance,  an  indication  or  sign  of  repentance  on 
the  part  of  the  person  baptized;  while  on  the  part  of  God 
it  was  a  token  of  pardon,  or  a  sign  of  the  reraission  of  sins. 
Thus  it  is  said,  Luke  iii.  3.  He  (John)  came  into  all  the 
country  round  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance FOR  THE  REMISSION  OF  sixs."  Now  I  ask,  did  not  John 
baptize  with  water  1  Or  will  he  deny  this  also  !  He  might  just 
as  well  deny  tliat  John  baptized  w  ith  water  in  the  wilderness,  as 
that  the  Apostles  did  the  same  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  His 
boasted  argument,  therefore,  recoils  upon  himself,  and  shows  at 
once  the /ac^  and  the  propriety  of  water  baptism.    It  is  a  sign  of 

repentance*^  on  our  part,  and  of  "  remission  of  sins"  on  tlie 
part  of  God.  It  strengthens  our  hope  of  remission,  and  the  oh- 
higation  of  repentance,  and  thus  is  an  useful  means  of  grace. 

Amicus  quotes  me  as  saying  it  was  no  man's  duty  to  com- 
mand any  one  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost."*  I  saici  no 
jiuch  thing  :  though  if  I  had,  it  would  have  been  true.    I  meant 


116 


to  say,  it  is  no  man's  duty  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
using  tills  phrase  in  its  only  ScHptiiral  seusc,  for  mii^aculoiis gifts. 
It  was  no  more  their  duty  then,  than  mine  now,  to  speak  with 
tongues,  utter  prophecies,  and  work  miracles.  And  the  Apostles 
did  not  mean  to  **command"  any  such  thing,  but  to  confess  Christ, 
io  profess  repentance,  and  put  on  Christ"  by  being  baptized 
with  water  in  his  name. 

On  the  subject  ot*  **  Apostolic  Infallibility,"  he  thinks  it  better 
to  make  them  err  in  judgment  than  in  practice.  I  think  it  bet- 
ter to  dishonour  them  than  God;  better  to  **  impeach  their  m- 
tegritif  than  their  inspiration.  Their  integrity  is  their  own  con- 
cern, their  inspiration  is  ours.  An  error  in  judgment  \a  ould  re- 
flect on  Him  who  promised  to  lead  them  into  all  truth ;"  an 
eiTor  in  practice  would  only  prove  them  imperfect  in  sanctifica- 
tion. — Amicus  must  know  little  of  the  human  heart,  or  of  Chris- 
tian experience,  not  to  admit  that  the  best  of  God's  people,  **  do 
the  things  which  they  allow  not,"  and  while  with  the  mind 
they  serve  tlie  law  of  God,  with  the  f  esh  they  serve  the  law  of 
sin."  (Rom.  vii.)  But  on  tliis  sub  ject  your  advocate  is  as  bad  as 
ni}  self.  For,  in  his  last  essay,  he  says,  I  am  very  certain 
the}  NEVER  WERE  MISTAKEN  on  this  point,"  (baptism)  i.  e. 
i\mr  judgment  was  right.    But  in  the  preceding  essay,  he  says 

I  admitted  that  in  the  early  periods  of  the  church,  the  Apos- 
tles practised  water  baptism."  Then  they  either  ;7radiser/ con- 
trary to  their  ;it%me?i/,  or  they  viewed  water  baptism  as  right! 
But  if  they  judged  it  riglit,  and  were  not  mistaken,"  then  it 
certainly  was  right.  Thus  Amicus  has  aided  in  defeating 
himself!" 

The  reader  will  remember  however,  that  my  doctrine  is,  they 
never  erred  in  judgment,  and  seldom,  very  seldom  erred  in  prac- 
tice. And  that  they  never  commanded  nor  recommended,  nor 
hahitually  practised  any  thing  wrong.  Tliat,  therefore,  their 
commanding,  recommending,  and  habitually  practising  water 
baptism,  is  a  proof  of  its  propriety  and  Divine  authority. 

In  answering  my  argument  from  John  iii.  5.  he  very  disin- 
genuously substitutes  tlie  3d  verse  for  the  5th. — In  the  text  which 
I  quoted,  our  Lord  does  not  say  **  except  a  man  be  born  of 
w  ater,  he  cannot  **se^,"  but  cannot  enter  into  tiie  kingdom  of 
God."  Unbaptized  persons  may  see,  with  the  natural  eye,  the 
visible  chui'ch,  but  cannot  enter  into  it,  or  become  its  members. 

I  now  proceed  to  notice  two  texts  which  have  been  used 
through  this  wIjoIc  discussion  as  perfect  hobbies  ;  texts  in  fact, 
upon  a  false  construction  of  which  the  greater  part  of  your  sys- 
tem rests,  texts  which  form  the  cement  of  Barclay's  work,  and 
w  hich  1  believe  have  more  influence  upon  your  mind  than  all  the 
rest  of  Scripture.    The  first  is  Eph.  iv.  5;  "one  Lord,  one 


117 

i'dithf  one  hapfisvi,^'  and  the  second,  Matt.  iii.  11:  I  indeed 
baptize  with  water,  but  he  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  The  former  you  quote  as  exchiding  more  than 
one  form,  shape  or  kind  of  baptism  ;  and  the  second  as  equiv- 
alent to  a  declaration  that  Christ  should  not  baptize  with  rcater. 
On  the  first  text,  I  remark,  1.  I  liave  no  objection  to  your  doc- 
trine; I  admit  there  is  butane  baptism,  and  that  is  -zra/er  bap- 
tism. This  is  the  common,  proper,  real  baptism  of  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  all  other  baptisms  are  not  really,  but  only  metaphoricalkj 
such.  But  2.  I  object  to  yourcms/nAcfio?i  of  this  text.  Because 
you  would  set  aside  the  baptism  of  blood,  as  well  as  that  of  mira- 
culous gifts,  and  thus  make  the  Apostle  declare  a  falsehood : 
and  because,  it  was  not  the  Apostle's  object  to  tell  how  we  are 
baptized,  but  to  draw  an  argument  for  the  unity  and  harmony  of 
christians.  He  is  advising  them  to  *•  keep  the  unit}  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"  because  they  have  one  Lord,  one 
faith,  one  baptism ;"  i.  e.  the  same  Lord,  the  same  faith,  the 
same  baptism.  His  expressions  as  much  prove  there  is  but  one 
kind  o{ faith,  as  one  kind  of  baptism  ;  and  we  know  there  are 
different  kinds  of  faith.  Again,  this  text  as  clearly  proves  there 
is- but  one  Lord,  as  one  baptism.  And  as  the  Father  is  here 
called  Lord,  therefore,  upon  your  construction  neither  the  Son. 
nor  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Lord,  for  there  is  one  Lord,  as  well  as  one 
baptism.  If  the  phrase  **one  Lord"  is  not  inconsistent  with  a 
plnrality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  the  phrase  **  one  baptism" 
is  not  inconsistent  with  plurality  of  modes.  You  must  therefore 
either  give  up  your  argument  or  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trini- 
ty, Only  substitute  the  words  **  the  same,"  in  the  place  of 
**  one,"  and  you  perceive  the  force  and  beauty  of  the  Apostle's 
argument.    Thus  one  of  your  main  pillars  falls  to  the  ground. 

Let  us  now  examine  your  other  argument,  John's  prediction, 
that  Christ  should  not  baptize  with  water,  John  nevei'  made  anj 
such  declaration,  or  any  thing  like  it ;  and  before  you  quote 
Mat.  iii.  11.  any  more  in  this  view,  escape  if  you  can,  tlie  fol- 
lowing dilemmas.  1.  Chr'v^  actually  baptized  with  water,  John 
iii.  22.  **  And  there  he  (Jesus)  tarried  with  them  and  baptized,-" 
This  was  no  '*  false  report,"  nor  "  scandalous  rumour,"  but 
the  declaration  of  an  eye  witness,  of  the  beloved  disciple,  and 
inspired  Apostle.  He  tarried  thei'e  and  baptized."  2.  It  is 
of  little  consequence  w  hether  he  bai)tized  with  his  own  hands. 
or  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples ;  w  hether  he  did  it  himself,  or 
ordered  it  to  be  done.  If  lie  had  not  been  the  director,  cause,  and 
author  of  it,  it  could  not  have  been  said  with  truth.  **  lie  bap- 
tized." 3.  Now  Jolin  the  Baptist  either  did  not  say  Christ 
should  not  baptize  with  atcr,  or  he  told  a  falsehoo(! !  If  you 
admit  the  former,  you  give  up  his  testimony ;  if  the  latter,  you 
tell  us  his  testimony  is  nothing  worth.    Take  your  choice. 


118 


If  you  attempt  to  escape  by  saying  "  Jesus  baptized  not,  but 
Lis  disciples,"  (John  iv.  1.)  and  that  John  did  not  allude  to 
what  Christ  would  do  by  his  disciples,  but  to  what  he  should  do 
in  his  own  person,  you  are  in  another  dilemma.  For  1.  The 
baptism  in  question  (Matt,  xxviii.  19.)  is  a  baptism  to  be  per- 
formed not  by  Christ  immediately,  but  bydhe  hands  of  his  disci- 
ples. "  Go  ye  baptize  all  nations."  Now,  2.  John  either  re- 
ferred to  what  Christ  should  do  by  his  disciples,  or  he  did  not. 
If  he  did  not,  his  declaration  has  no  hearing  on  the  question.  If 
you  say  he  did,  you  surrender  your  position,  make  John  the 
Baptist  assert  a  falsehood,  and  contradict  yourselves  ! 

The  truth  is,  John  the  Baptist  did  not  mean  to  assert  that 
Jesus  should  or  should  not  baptize  with  water ;  he  only  intend- 
ed to  contrast  his  own  meanness  with  Christ's  glory  ;  as  he  says 
in  the  same  verse,  *'He  that  cometh  after  me  is  greater  than  I ; 
I  can  only  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
more^  with  the  Holy  GJiost,^*  I  have  been  thus  particular  in 
answering  these  two  texts,  because  they  form  the  two  sides  of 
Barclay's  ladder,  which  once  taken  away,  the  internal  structure 
falls  of  course. 

Before  I  conclude,  I  would  add  a  word  on  the  conformity  of 
this  ordinance  to  the  present  dispensation. — Says  Amicus,  "we 
are  not  to  suppose  that  Clirist  would  order  any  rite  inconsistent 
with  his  own  administration."  True ;  but  we  are  to  suppose 
Him  a  better  Judge  of  what  is  consistent  and  what  is  inconsistent 
than  ourselves.  The  fallacy  lies  here  :  you  first  determine  in 
your  own  mind  what  is  proper  for  Infinite  Wisdom  to  prescribe, 
and  then  take  it  for  granteii  this  has  actually  been  prescribed. 
We  take  the  opposite  course ;  first  inquiring  what  God  has  actu- 
ally prescribed,  and  then  acknowledging  "he  hath  done  all 
things  well."  Upon  your  ground  infidels  reject  the  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures.  They  first  imagine  a  p-ion  what  sort  of  a 
Revelation  God  7vonld  make,  and  then  because  the  Bible  does 
not  correspond  with  their  preconceived  notions,  they  reject  it  as 
false.  The  grand  argument  on  which  we  rest  its  propriety,  is 
the  same  on  which  we  rest  the  Trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  justification  by  faith  alone, — God  has  expressly  taught  it  in 
his  word.  Yet  we  are  far  from  saying,  it  cannot  be  defended 
on  tlie  ground  of  reason.  For  when  viewed  as  connected,  as  it 
always  is  when  properly  administered,  with  teaching;  when 
viewed  as  a  sign  of  discii)leship,  and  the  bond  of  a  covenant,  it 
Is  an  excellent  means  of  grace.  It  is  no  more  inconsistent  with 
the  present  dispensation  than  preaching,  prayer,  singing,  con- 
versation, public  worship,  silent  waiting — all  which  are  external 
signs  of  certain  exercises  of  heart,  binding  the  persons  who  prac- 
tise them,  to  make  their  internal  feelings  correspond  with  theri*^ 


119 


external  conduct.  All  these,  with  haptism  and  the  Lord*s  sup- 
per, are  means  of  grace,  or  ordinances  by  which  God,  in  his 
own  time  and  way,  communicates  grace,  and  without  using 
which  no  person  lias  a  right  to  expect  grace.  While  we  are  in 
the  body,  it  will  ever  be  proper,  yea  necessary,  to  address  our 
il  understandings  through  our  senses.  * 
"  TAUL. 

Seventh-day,  lOth  Mo.  0,  1821. 

LETTER  XIII. 

ly  the  general  character  and  particular  features  of  Paul's  first 
addresses  to  us,  there  is  evidence  of  an  overweaning  confidence 
in  his  own  powers — anxious  for  a  contest  and  confident  of  a  vic- 
tory, he  invaded  our  peaceable  territory  and  proclaimed  an  of- 
fensive war ;  but  he  advanced  in  untried  armour,  not  conscious 
of  his  weakness,  nor  of  his  adversary's  forces.    In  his  first 
manifesto  he  proclaimed  to  the  world  "the  purity  of  his  mo- 
tives," and     the  justness  of  his  cause," — and  added  for  our  in- 
formation, that    he  was  armed  strong  in  honesty,"  and  did  not 
"  fear  controversy."    Notwithstanding  the  foi'midable  appear- 
ance of  such  an  assailant,  had  he  used  no  weapons  but  truth  and 
fair  argument,  he  might  have  passed  along  quietly — the  discus- 
sion of  our  doctrines  would  at  least  have  occupied  his  idle  hours, 
and  the  correctness  of  our  principles  when  fairly  stated  would 
have  been  seen  in  his  attempts  to  refute  them.    But  it  was  not 
long  before  our  assailant  convinced  us  by  the  uncandid  misre- 
presentation of  our  doctrines,  that  some  attempt  at  an  explana- 
tion of  them  was  due  to  the  public,  and  to  the  cause  w  e  had  es- 
poused.   Under  this  impression,  **  Amicus"  commenced  a  set  of 
JEssays  for  the  sole  purpose  of  illustrating  our  religious  views  ; 
i    pursuing  this  object  in  the  most  inoffensive  manner,  he  was  soon 
I    assailed  by  the  most  pointed  sarcasms,  and  the  society  of  which 
I!    he  is  a  member,  by  the  most  opprobious  epithets ;  mistaking 
;    mildness  for  weakness,  our  opponent  took  every  opportunity  to 
:    defame  us,  in  which  he  manifested  a  malevolence  of  character, 
worthy  indeed  of  a  persecuting  ^*  Saul,"  but  totally  unfitting 
the  character  of  the  mild  and  benevolent  Apostle,  whose  name 
I    he  has  assumed.     For  confirmation  of  this  statement,  see 
"Paul's"  productions  in  Letters  3,  4,  5,  7,  9,  11. 

Such  were  the  circumstances  of  the  present  discussion,  when 
Paul"  dissatisfied  with  my  explanatory  method  of  defending 
our  doctrines,  and  eager  to  show  his  skill  at  close  quarters,  press- 
ed "  Amicus'  to  *<  come  to  the  point."  A  clear  exposition  of  the 


120 


I'lToiieoiis  opinions  of  my  opponent,  soon  followed  ?  our  prin- 
ciples were  shewn  to  be  consistent  with  sound  reason,  the  nature 
of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  and  the  plainest  Scripture  text — but 
nnha|)pily  for  the  repose  of  our  assailant,  the  strength  of  our 
position  could  not  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  m  ide  known  to  him, 
without  exhibiting  his  own  weakness  ;  this  discovery  has  thrown 
him  into  a  state  not  very  becoming  his  profession  as  an  advocate 
of  religion.  His  last  address  to  us,  bears  sti'ong  marks  of  an 
angrij  spirit,  instead  of  a  **  spirit  full  of  love!"  the  proof  of 
which,  in  the  first  paragraph  of  his  Essay,  will  I  think,  be  of- 
fensive to  his  friends.  Truth  rvill  have  compassion  on  Error, 
it  is  the  property  of  Error  to  be  angry  at  tlie  Truth. 

I  will  only  observe  in  reply  to  his  assertion,  that  ''Amicus'* 
was  infuriated  and  desperate,"  that  if  any  symptoms  of  such  a 
state  were  apparent  in  the  phraseology  of  my  last  production,  I 
have  been  most  unhappy  in  the  sclectioji  of  terms  to  express  my 
feelings ;  I  cannot  liowever  reject  the  belief,  that  Paul"  has 
drawn  this  angry  portrait  from  the  state  of  his  own  mind. — 

Amicus"  certainly  was  very  far  re  noved  from  **  despairf^- 
when  he  penned  that  Essay  ;  as  to  fury,^-  he  neither  felt  it, 
nor  perceived  any  reason  to  feel  it  on  that  occasion.  I  have  yet 
to  learn  that  any  position  I  have  advanced  on  the  subject  of  wa- 
ter baptism,  can  be  refuted  by  Scripture  testimony  or  sound  ar- 
gument. Of  the  state  of  my  temper,  I  cheerfully  leave  my  read- 
ers to  judge. 

It  is  an  important  question,  at  this  point  of  the  discussion, 
how  far  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  those  periods,  which  suc- 
ceeded the  Apostolic  age,  are  to  be  relied  on  for  the  confirmation 
or  refutation  of  any  doctrine  that  may  be  advanced  by  either  of 
us."  Now  I  will  cheerfully  grant  that  any  document  written 
under  the  immediate  iiifluence  of  Divine  inspiration  is  good  and 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  truths  to  whicfiit  is  applicable  :  and  I 
think  m\  opponent  will  admit,  that  no  uninspired  writer  can  with 
propriety  be  quoted  as  authority  on  doctrinal  subjects.  Now  I 
affirm  that  not  only  the  professors  of  Christianity  at  large, 
but  also  the  Teachers  of  the  second  century,  and  of  every  suc- 
ceeding age  were  divided  in  sentiment  on  the  most  impoi-tant 
subjects.  By  comparing  the  writings  of  Justin,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  Clemens,  Alexandrinus  and  Tertullian,  this  position 
will  be  fully  confirmed.  But  besides  the  evidence  of  their  falli- 
bility  exhibited  in  their  wntings,  there  is  irrefutable  testimony 
to  this  point  in  the  history  of  their  practice.  Their  departure 
from  the  simplicity  of  Christian  worship,  their  adoption  of  the 
heathen  philosopliy,  and  their  introduction  of  Jewish  and  Pagan 
I'ites  into  the  Church,  mark  their  apostacy  from  the  Divine 
purity  of  the  Christian  Religion,  as  taught  by  our  Lord  and  his 


121 


faithful  Apostles.  If  the  limits  of  my  essay  permitted  it,  I 
could  easily  adduce  ample  proofs  of  this  statement  ;  if  my  op- 
ponent should  deny  its  truth,  I  shall  take  the  pains  to  prove  it 
from  historical  records.  The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  the 
premises  is  plain  ;  the  church  of  professing  Christians  after  the 
lirst  century  is  not  sufficient  authority  to  prove  the  truth  of  amj 
doctrines  or  the  purity  of  any  practice  not  clearly  established  by 
our  Lord  or  his  Apostles. 

'^Paul"  still  manifests  his  affection  for  t!iat  spui-ious  produc- 
tion called  tlie  "  Apostolic  constitutions."    Indeed  it  appears 
that  he  has  substantial  reasons  for  his  attachment  to  this  work  ; 
Avhilst  its  authority,  and  that  of  the  early  Fathers  would  indeed 
be  **  a  severe  tliorn  in  my  side,"  as  well  as  in  the  sides  of  tlie 
good  people  of  the  United  States  of  America,  it  would  undoubt- 
edly be  a  cordial  to  him.    *•  In  the  second  century,"  says  Mo- 
shcini,  **  the  Christian  Doctors  had  the     good  /orf w/ie  to  per- 
'*  suade  the  people  that  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  cliurcU 
succeeded  to  the  character^  rights  and  privileges  of  the  Jewish 
priestJwod,  ami  this  persuasion  was  a  new  source  both  oi  iionmir 
and  profit  to  the  sacred  order ;  the  errors  to  w  hich  this  absurd 
comparison  gave  rise,  were  many,  and  one  of  its  immediate 
consequences  was  the  establishing  a  greater  difference  between, 
the  Christian  Pastors  and  their  flock,  than  the  genius  of  the 
Gospel  seems  to  admit."    See  Mosh.  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  II. 
Part  2.  Cap.  2.    "^Paul"  says  **it  is  generally  supposed  the  con- 
stitutions were  written  at  tiie  close  of  the  second,  or  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century,  and  have  been  received  as  au- 
thority by  the  greatest  men."    Although  it  is  not  correct  that 
this  was  the  general  supposition,  yet  as  my  opponent  desires  it 
should  be  so,  we  will  for  the  present  admit  the  statement.  Now~ 
in  oi'der  that  my  reader  may  judge  for  himself  of  the  state  of 
the  church  at  tiie  time  they  were  written,  I  will  on  the  author!-: 
ty  of  the  learned  Dr.  Jortin,  give  some  of  the  sentiments  con- 
tained in  this  celebrated  production :   **  The  constitutions," 
says  the  Doctor,     repeatedly  assert,  that  a  bishop  is  a  god, 
a  GOD  upon  earth  !  and  a  king,  and  infinitely  superior  to  aKixG, 
•*  and  ruling  over  Rulers  and  Ktngs  !  they  commanded  Christians 
to  give  him  tribute  as  a  Ktngf  and  reverence  hi  m  as  a  god  !  an;!  to 
pay  him  tithes  and  first  /ruifs,  according,  say  they,  to  God's 
coiumand,  and  they  strictly  forbid  Christians  to  make  any  in- 
quiry  or  to  take  any  notice  whether  he  dispose  of  these  reve 
nues  well  or  ill  ! ! !" 

•*  Can  the  Christian  Reader  suppress  his  indignation"  at  the 
perusal  of  this  iuipious  docti-ine  f  on  my  part  I  can  truly  say 
that  it  excites  no  sentiment  like  iudignatioii.    In  our  nappy 
country  it  is  as  harmless  as  a  papal  anatheraa  !    Divine  mercj" 
16 


122 


has  shed  a  ray  of  light  on  the  Christian  world  which  is  melting 
a\va>  the  ])ower  of  a  mercenary  Priesthood,  and  penetrating  the 
dark  abodes  of  superstition  ;  the  advocates  of  such  a  doctrine 
have  a  better  title  to  our  pity,  than  to  our  anger  :  no  practice 
that  depends  for  its  support  on  such  a  broken  reed,  can  finally 
avoid  a  fall. 

My  opponent  tells  his  reader  that  "Amicus"  denies  that 
Baptism,"  commonly  in  Scripture  signifies,  an  outward  rite — 
that  Doddridge,  Pyle,  Campbell,  Scott,  Ileni-y,  Parkhurst  and 
Gill,  are  of  any  authority  as  cnticSf  or  the  Fathers  as  witnesses 
to  a  plain  fact Now  not  one  word  of  this  sentence  is  true, 
although  it  is  a  pretty  fair  specimen  of  "  Paul's"  candour  in  all 
the  stages  of  this  discussion  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  shew  in 
future.  In  the  first  place  I  have  never  said  that  the  word  bap" 
tism  is  not  commonly  used  to  signify  an  outward  rite — although 
I  have  said  tliat  '*in  the  New  Testament  it  is  very  commonly  used 
to  imply  the  purifying  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  but  tliere 
is  no  contradiction  in  this  position  a  word  may  be  commonly 
used  to  convey  at  different  times  distinct  meanings.  Paul" 
himself  acknowledges  this  truth,  where  he  says,  "  The  King- 
dom  of  God  is  in  Scripture  used  in  t7Vo  senses  ;  for  the  visible 
arid  invisible  church,  foi*  the  body  of  apparent  and  of  real  saints. 
That  it  sometimes  means  the  invisible  church  all  will  admit,  but 
that  it  often  means  also  the  visible  church  none  \\  ill  doubt." 
Thus  we  see  that  my  opponent  who  insists  so  strongly  for  the 
literal  meaning  of  words,  in  one  case,  can  when  it  suits  his  pur- 
pose, contend  for  a  figurative  meaning  in  another.  Sometimes 
the  Kingdom  of  God"  is  to  be  understood  literally ,  often  figu- 
ratively. 

Paul  in  his  last  essay,  either  tlirough  inattention  to  the  state  of 
the  controversy  or  from  a  desire  to  lead  his  reader  away  from 
the  points  at  issue,  takes  much  pains  to  prove,  that  the  Baptism 
of  John  w  as  with  water,  and  that  Water  Baptism  was  sometimes 
used  in  the  primitive  church  he  might  have  saved  himself  all 
this  unnecessary  trouble  if  he  had  reverted  to  a  former  conclu- 
sion of  Amicus,"  that  this  no  more  proves  that  Water  Bap- 
tism is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  than  that  circumcision  and  Jew- 
ish sacrifices  arc  yet  binding  on  the  chui'ch.  Not  only  Water 
Baptism,  but  circumcision  and  Jewish  sacrifices  were  used  in 
the  days  of  John  the  Baptist — in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  and 
in  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  a  long  time  afterwards  in  the  pro- 
fessed churches  of  Christ,  as  can  be  clearly  proved  :  If  there- 
fore the  practice  of  the  Apostles  prove  any  thing,  it  proves  too 
mucii,  and  the  whole  conclusion  drawn  from  these  facts  must  fall 
to  the  ground. 

The  contradictions  and  absurdities  in     Paul's"  attempt  to 


123 


uphold  his  carnal  scheme,  are  so  numerous,  that  the  limits  of  an 
essay  would  be  too  narrow  to  exhibit  them.  I  will,  however, 
point  to  a  few  of  them.  First,  in  Letter  XI,  he  tells  ns  that  the 
Apostle  speaks  of  water  baptism  'ds  an  important  means  of  salva- 
tion ;  then  he  tells  us  it  is  a  symbol  or  sign  of  regeneration. 
"Sow  I  would  ask  how  in  the  nature  of  things,  can  any  symbol 
or  sign,  be  an  important  means  of  salvation? 

Again  he  tells  us  that  the  early  Fathers  commonly  used  the 
phrase,  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  to  signify  baptism  : 
now  according  to  my  opponent,  water  baptism  is  a  *•  symbol,  or 
sign  of  regeneration  of  course,  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
must  be  a  sign  of  regeneration  !  this  conclusion  is  too  contra- 
dictory to  common  sense,  to  need  animadversion. 

Quoting  the  text  **  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one 
body,"  he  says  "this  one  body  is  the  church,  risift/g  and  invisible. 
By  baptism  with  water,  we  are  introduced  into  union  with  the 
former,  by  haptism  with  the  Spirit  into  the  lattei-,  the  one  is  a 
-  type  of  the  other."  Thus  he  would  make  the  word  Baptism" 
to  have  two  meanings  at  the  same  time ;  one  literal^  and  the 
other^^uraf/re.  But  tlie  absurdity  of  tliis  construction  plainly 
appears  from  the  text ;  for  the  Holy  Spirit  is  mentioned  as  the 
baptizer.  '*By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized."  So  that  ac- 
cording to  "  Paul,"  water  baptism  is  performed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ! 

Again  quoting  Gal.  iii.  27:  "  As  many  as  have  heen  baptized 
1  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ,"  he  tells  us  tliat  "  baptism  here 
is  used  in  two  senses  a  literal  and,  figurative.^'  One  meaning 
with  water,  and  the  other  with  the  Spirit.  Now  if  this  construc- 
tion were  correct,  none  can  put  on  Christ,  except  he  be  baptized 
with  water ! 

I  will  now  advert  to  **  Paul's"  explanation  of  John  iii.  5  :  a 
text  on  which  he  seems  to  place  much  reliance  for  the  support  of 
the  sprinkling  system. — **  Jesus  answered,  verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  horn  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God."  *»  The  Kingdom  of 
God"  in  this  passage,  must  either  mean  the  visible  or  invisible 
church.  If  it  mean  the  visible  church,  then  according  to  Paul," 
no  man  can  enter  the  visible  church,  unless  he  be  baptized  with 
water,  and  with  the  Spirit ;  wliich  is  a  contradiction  to  the  uni- 
form experience  of  mankind.  If  it  mean  the  invisible  church  in 
Heaven,  and  the  word  water  alludes  to  water  baptism,  then  no 
man  can  be  saved  unless  he  has  been  baptized  in  water, 
w  liich  my  opponent  will  not  assert ;  the  inevitable  conclusion  is, 
that  the  word  water  in  the  text,  is  used  figuratively,  just  in  the 
same  manner  as  John  tlie  Baptist  used  the  word  '\fire.''  n  here 
he  says,  when  speaking  of  tlie  baptism  of  Christ,  **IIe  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with^re,"  Luke  iii.  16. 


124 


It  must  have  been  observed  by  our  readers,  that  "  Paul's'* 
method  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  is  so  h)ose  that  if  it  be- 
sanctioned,  there  is  no  position  so  weak  tliat  it  may  not  be  sup- 
ported by  the  sacred  text.  Sometimes  he  takes  a  passage ^^m- 
ratirely — somQiimcs  Hi cr ally  ;  sometimes  to  bend  it  to  his  pur- 
po  c,  he  at  tlie  same  time  puts  ?i  jigurative  and  literal  meaning, 
on  tlie  same  word.  This  course,  if  it  receive  the  general  appro- 
bation, must  tend  wholly  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the 
Scripture,  and  render  it  subservient  to  the  basest  purposes. 
Every  passage  must  have  eitlier  a  literal  or  figurative  meaning 
there  is  no  alternative  ;  th^e  writer  intended  to  express  himself 
either  in  a  literal  or  figurative  sense ;  any  other  hypothesis  would 
destroy  all  confidence  in  the  text,  and  do  more  mischief  to  the 
cause  of  Christianity,  than  all  the  cavils  of  the  Atheist  or  Infidel. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  **  Paul's"  explanation  of  the  text,  Tliere 
is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 
who  is  above  all,  and  tlirough  all,  and  in  you  all,"  PLph.  iv.  5, 
6. — The  baptism  of  w  ater,  and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
are  clearly  mentiojied  in  Scripture  as  two  distinct  baptisms. 
John's  expressions  are  conclusive  on  this  point.  '*  I  indeed 
have  baptized  you  w  ith  water,  but  he  (Christ)  shall  baptize  you 
"with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now-  w  hen  the  Apostle  w  rote  this  pas- 
sage, only  **a7ie"  of  these  Baptisms  was  binding  on  the  believer 
in  Christ.  There  is  but  one  Christian  Baptism;  this  position  can- 
not be  refuted  ; — the  text  is  too  clear  to  be  perverted  by  sopliis- 
try.  The  question  then  is,  w  hat  is  that  one  Baptism  ?  AVe  say 
it  is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  **  Paul"  says  it  is  **  water 
baptism,  and  that  there  is  no  otlier  real  baptism  !"  If  this  were 
admitted,  then  our  Lord  w  as  mistaken  when  he  said,  Acts  i.  5 : 

Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  then  the  Apostle 
was  mistaken,  w  hen  he  said,  **  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized 
into  one  body," — and  tlsen  the  faith  of  the  Holy  Apostle  and  all 
the  spiritual  members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  has  been  in  vain  ; 
they  have  all  died  in  their  sins,  for  without  reai  spiritual  bap- 
tism, there  is  no  remission  of  sin. 

Paul,"  in  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  text,  tells  us  there 
are  different  kinds  of  faith,  and  several  Lords  ;  there  appears  to 
be  some  truth  in  this  assertion,  for  it  clearly  appears  that  his  , 
faith  is  very  different  from  the  faith  of  the  Apostle  ;  my  o])po- 
nent's  faith  is  of  a  carnal  natui-e  ;  it  rests  in  elementary  w  ater, 

in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordi- 
nances," as  the  **  important  means  of  salvation."  He  also  ac- 
knowledges several  Lords,  in  which  he  plainly  declares  his 
faith  to  be  different  from  the  Apostle's  faith,  w  ho,  in  1  Cor.  viii. 
5,  6  :  says,  **  For  tliough  there  be,  that  are  called  Gods,  wheth- 
er in  Heaven  or  in  earth,  for  there  be  Gods  many,  and  Lords 


155 


many,  but  to  us  there  is  hut  one  God,  the  Father,  of  wliom  are 
all  things,  and  we  in  him  ;  and  one  Ijord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
are  all  tilings,  and  we  by  him." — I  think  my  reader  must  ac- 
knowledge, on  a  serious  review  of  these  autliorities,  that  the 
pillar  which  Paul"  supposed  had  fallen  to  the  ground,  still 
stands  in  its  place,  a  firm  support  to  that  excellent  testimony 
against  the  weakness  of  all  typical  and  carnal  ordinances, 
**  weak  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience,  and  which  can  never 
make  him  that  doeth  the  service,  perfect." 

Paul"  attempts  to  weave  a  dilemma  or  two  for  me ;  and  as 
they  are  rather  an  unpleasant  thing  to  he  entangled  in,  I  will 
not  rest  in  tliem  as  he  does,  without  making  an  attempt  to  extri- 
cate myself,  in  which  I  have  no  fear  I  shall  easily  succeed.  The 
iirst  dilemma  is  formed  by  an  assertion  of  my  opponent,  w  hich  is 
in  contradiction  to  the  plainest  Scripture  testimony. — '*  Paul" 
says,  "Jesus  did  baptize  with  water."  The  Evangelist  says, 
"Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples."  That  our  Lord  **or- 
-  dered  it  to  be  done,"  rests  upon  a  bare  assertion  ;  there  is  not 
the  least  proof  of  it,  as  my  reader  will  see  by  reading  the  whole 
passage.  I  do  not  know  that  the  true  state  of  the  case  can  be 
better  explained  than  in  the  language  of  Dell,  master  of  Gonvil 
and  Caius  college  in  Cambridge.    **  The  baptism  of  John  was 

very  honourahle,  and  of  high  account  in  its  time,  so  that  the 
«  Ycpy  disciples  of  Clirist  took  it  np,  and  Christ  himself  suffered 

them,  because  John's  baptism  was  the  sign  and  forerunner  of 

liis,  and  because  tlie  time  of  his  own  baptism  was  not  yet 
•*  come  ;  but  Christ  himself  used  it  not  as  Jolm  witnesses,  chap. 
'*  iv.  2:  saying  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples — 
"  to  wit,  with  John's  baptism,  which  was  water  baptism.  For 

it  became  not  the  Son  of  God  to  baptize  with  a  creature,  nor  the 

Lord  of  all  to  use  the  baptism  of  a  serrant,^^  See  **  The  Doc- 
trine of  Baptism  reduced  from  its  ancient  and  modern  corrup- 
tions, by  Wm.  Dell,  printed  1652." 

Tiie  otlier  dilemma  is  formed  by  begging  tlie  question — by  a 
mere  assumption  without  the  least  proof.  He  says  the  baptism 
in  question  (Matt,  xxviii.  19  :)  is  a  baptism  to  be  performed  not 
by  Christ  immediately,  but  by  the  hands  of  his  disciples.  But 
the  text  does  not  say,  "  Go  teach  all  nations  baptizing  them, 
witli  your  hands  in  water,"  but  "  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptiz- 
ing them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  for  so  the  Greek  has  it.  If  "Paul"  can  prove  that 
i\w  disciples  were  ordered  to  baptize  "  witii  their  hands,"  I 
will  clieerfully  yield  the  point ;  but  tliis  I  am  certain  he  can 
never  do.  Now  if  my  opponent  cannot  weave  a  sti'onger  di- 
lemma than  these,  I  tiiink  he  had  better  relinquish  the  business. 

Having  noticed  all  the  material  parts  of  "  Paul's  last  essay, 


126 


I  Avill  conclude  this  number  with  a  short  extract  IVom  a  poetical 
letter  of  the  celebrated  M.  Knowles,  written  on  the  subject  no\t 
in  discussion  many  years  ago. 

"  No  typic  observations  are  revered, 

"  Since  their  immortal  Archetype  appeared. 

"  Fox  preached  this  tloctrme  to  a  seeking-  ag-e, 

**  It  shines  in  Baiiclat's  imrefuted  page — 

**  Simple  their  scJieme — no  mean  self-love  they  knew, 

*'  But  freely  preached  without  a  sordid  view; 

**  With  hearts  devoted,  Gospel  truths  displayed, 

"  An.!  scorned  to  make  Divinity  a  trade  : 

**  No  jug-gling"  a-t  e'er  used— -m/  low  disguise, 

"  O'er  obvious  texts  and  sense  to  tyrannize  ; 

"  Discerning  truth  by  its  own  native  light, 

'*  And  bv  its  guidance,  practiced  what  was  right." 

AMICUS. 

SalurdaytOct.  13,1821. 

LETTER  XII. 

ON  THE  lord's  supper. 

The  last  essay  of  Amicus  contains  nothing  of  importance  and 
serves  simply  to  fill  the  blank.  Two  or  three  things  only  I 
would  notice.  His  long  defence  of  his  motives  was  unnecessa- 
ry. Though  I  Ivave  been  puzzled  at  times  to  reconcile  his  want 
of  candour,  his  cunning  evasions,  and  erroneous  quotations  with 
perfect  honesty,  I  have  never  intentionally  questioned,  nor  am  I 
now  disposed  to  question  his  general  integrity,  or  coolness  of 
temper.  And  I  assure  him  that  I  feel  not  the  slightest  emotion 
of  anger,  though  accused  of  writing  with  an  angry  spirit,** 
with  an  overweaning  confidence,"  with  malevolence,"  and 
asserting  what  was  **  not  one  word  of  it  true  !"  Let  the  public 
decide. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  the  author  of  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,"  against  which  he  inveighs  so  much,  was  only 
me  of  seventy  witnesses  adduced  by  me  to  prove  the  universal 
prevalence  of  water  baptism  in  primitive  times.  No  other  wit- 
ness has  he  questioned. 

Campbell,  Parkhurst,  Doddridge,  and  others,  were  quoted  by 
me  expressly  and  solely  as  critics,  to  determine  the  sense  of  a 
Greek  word  ;  and  the  Fathers  solely  as  witnesses  of  the  fact  ofi 
water  baptism.  He  sets  them  all  aside  as  of  **no  more  authori- 
ty" with  him,  <'t!ian  the  writers  of  the  church  of  Rome"  with 
me.  Yet  when  I  charge  him  with  rejecting  tlie  former  as  cntics, 
and  the  latter  as  witnesses  of  fact,  he  charges  me  with  saying 
what  is  *^  not  true."    Now  he  either  did  reject  them  as  critics 


and  witnesses,  or  he  did  not.  If  he  did,  what  I  said  was  true  ; 
if  he  did  not,  his  declaration  was  nothing  to  tlie  point.  He  has 
his  choice. 

Whether  he  has  escaped,  or  ever  can  escape  the  dilenunas 
founded  on  John  iii.  22,  let  the  public  judge.  It  was  a  maxim 
of  Amicus  in  a  late  number,  that  what  a  principal  does  by  the 
agency  of  another,  he  does  himself."  It  is  of  no  consequence 
therefore,  whether  our  Lord  baptized  with  his  own  hands,  or  by 
his  disciples,  provided  he  baptized.  The  Editor  of  the  Reposi- 
tory as  really  prints  that  paper,  as  though  he  set  the  types  with 
his  own  hands.  It  is  true  that  he  prints  the  paper,  and  it  is  like- 
wise true  that  he  does  not  print  it  himself ,  but  his  workmen. 
In  like  manner,  it  is  true  that  Jesus  baptized  ;  while  it  is  equal- 
ly true  that  ^*  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples."  IC 
however,  the  Editor  of  the  Repository  did  not  employ,  direct,  su- 
perintend, or  cause  others  to  print  the  paper,  it  could  not  be  said 
with  truth  he  printed  it.  Upon  the  same  principle,  if  our  Lord 
did  not  authorize,  direct,  or  order  the  disciples  to  baptize,  the  in- 
spired Apostle  was  mistaken  when  he  says  of  Jesus,  he  bap- 
tized''^ — "  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into 
the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  baptized. 
And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  &c."  John  iii.  22,  23. 
It  is  as  expressly  said  that  Jesns  baptized,  as  that  Jb/i?i  baptized. 
Amicus  is  therefore  on  the  horns  of  the  dilemma  still. 

On  the  subject  of  Apostolic  practice.  Amicus  has  not  only 
taken  ground  different  from  all  liis  predecessors,  but  has  shifted 
his  own  ground.  The  usual  mode  of  defence  has  been  to  admit 
the /flc^  that  the  Apostles  practised  water  baptism,  but  hold  they 
w^ere  mistaken.  This  ground  was  at  first  taken  by  your  ad- 
vocate. Driven  from  tliis,  he  takes  the  opposite  ground,  and 
says,  I  am  very  certain  thatthey  never  were  mistaken  on  this 
point,"  and  denies  i\\e  fact  that  they  baptized  with  water  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  *Kot  anticipating  the  denial  of  a  fact  so  evi- 
dent, I  did  not  quote  the  passages  at  large,  and  it  seems  out  of  place 
to  do  it  now.  Let  the  reader  examine  for  himself;  taking  the 
concession  of  Amicus  in  Ids  hand  that  **they  never  were  mis- 
taken on  this  point,"  let  him  examine  Acts  ii.  viii.  ix.  x.  xvi.  xix. 
&c.  and  decide  wjiether  the  Apostles  did  not  reallij  believe  water 
baptism  to  be  an  institution  of  Christ.  I  have  no  fear  of  the  re- 
sult. Every  candid  reader  will  be  convinced  that  they  who, 
like  the  Pharisees  and  Lawyers  of  old,  refuse  to  be  be  baptized, 

I reject  the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,'*  (Luke  vii.  30.) 
THE  lord's  supper. 
Amicus,  in  three  long  essays  on  this^  subject,  has  laboured  to 
.prove  three  things that  this  ordinance  was  not  instituted 


128 


by  Clirist" — ^^was  not  practised  by  the  Apostles" — and  'Ms 
not  consistent  with  the  present  dispensation."  So  weak  and 
irrelevant  are  most  of  his  arguments,  that  I  would  not  notice 
them,  but  let  my  former  essay,  on  this  subject,  stand  against 
his  tliree,  were  I  not  afraid  some  people,  without  examination, 
w  ould  measure  the  weight  by  the  bulk.  Compared  with  the  bulk 
of  his  words,  his  arguments  are  as  two  kernels  of  wheat  in  a 
bushel  of  chalf !"  His  long  quotations  from  Scripture  and  from 
Cradockf  to  prove  that  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  met  to  eat 
the  passover, — that  the  Jews  were  in  the  practice  of  using  bread 
and  wine  at  that  feast,  and  that  the  present  is  a  spiritual  dispen- 
sation"— quotations  which  occupy  tlie  larger  portion  of  his  tliree 
essays,  every  judicious  reader  must  have  at  once  pronounced 
nothing  to  the  point  !  We  are  willing  to  admit  they  met  for  the 
celebration  of  the  passover,  but  out  of  this  feast,  or  after  it,  our 
Lord  formed  his  own  feast,  in  the  room  of  the  passover.  We 
grant  also  that  our  Lord  did  not  send  off  to  the  market  for  bread 
and  wine,  but  took  that  which  was  on  the  table  before  him  :  and 
also,  that  the  present  is  pre-eminently  a  dispensation  of  the  spirit; 
but  as  a  dispensation,  it  is  not  so  spiritual  as  to  set  aside  every 
thing  external,  or  we  must  reject  Preaching.  Praying,  Public 
Worship,  Reading,  Conversation,  for  all  these  are  addressed  to 
the  senses,  as  well  as  Baptism  or  tlie  Lord's  Supper. 

The  plain  question  is,  did  our  Lord,  or  did  he  not  institute  what 
we  call  the  hordes  Supper?  You  say  no,  and  we  say  yes.  I 
have  already  referred  in  general  to  the  evidence  on  this  subject; 
a  more  particular  reference  will  confirm  my  former  arguments. 

That  our  Lord  actually  instituted  this  feast,  is  proved  by  four 
inspired  witnesses.  First  Witness.  The  Evangelist  ./>/a??/iew 
in  chapter  xxvi.  26  :  says,  As  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took 
bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  discipies, 
and  said,  take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and 
gave  tlianks,  and  gave  it  to  them  saying,  drink  ye  all  of  it ;  for 
this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for  many 
for  the  remission  of  sins." 

On  this  plain  testimony  I  would  simply  remark,  the  Apostle 
must  have  understood  our  Lord  as  introducing  a  new  and  im- 
portant ceremony,  or  he  would  not  liave  noticed  it.  Matthew 
had  been  long  and  intimately  acquainted  with  Jewish  usages  on 
this  subject,  and  had  three  times  before,  celebrated  the  Passover 
ivith  our  Lord  himself.  If  this  was  an  usual  ceremony  at  that 
feast,  and  no  new  institution,"  why  had  he  never  before  re- 
marked it?  It  was  manifestly  a  new  institution  whicli  our  Lord 
here  introduced  as  less  burdensome,  and  more  significant  thaa 
the  Passover. 

Second  Witness.  The  Evangelist  Mark,  in  clia])ter  xiv, 
22 :  bears  tlie  same  testimony,  in  almost  the  same  words. 


129 


Third  Witness.  The  Evangelist  Luke,  in  chapter  xxii. 
19  :  says,  "  And  he  took  hrcad  and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it, 
and  gave  unto  them,  saying,  this  is  iny  body  which  is  given  for 

you,   THIS  DO  IN  RKMEMBRANCE  OF  ME.      LikcwisC  the  CUp 

also  after  supper,  saying,  this  cup  is  tlic  New  Testament  in  my 
blood,  which  is  shed  for  you.'* 

Here  is  not  only  the  institution  of  the  ordinance,  but  an  ex- 
press command  to  keep  it.  But  says  Amicus,  the  words  *  this 
do  in  remembrance  of  me,'  are  in  the  present  tense,  and  simply 
mean,  eat  in  remembrance  of  its  great  Antitype,  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  and  again,  Christ  does  not  say,  '  do  this  in  remem- 
brance oimy  deaths''  but  eat  and  drink  in  remembrance  of  tliat 
Divine  Spirit  which  should  shortly  be  poured  out." — Answer. 
How  we  can  remember  a  thingprese/i^,  and  much  more  one  which 
is  to  come,  is  beyond  my  compi'ehension !  Remembrance  relates 
to  things  past.  And  in  remembering  the  **  Divine  Spirit,^'  there 
is  something  too  vague  for  common  minds.  Far  preferable  is 
-  the  simplicity  of  the  Scripture,  do  this  in  remembrance  of 
ME,"  of  my  sufferings  and  death.  Let  this  broken  bread  repre- 
sent my  broken  body,  and  this  wine  my  blood,  which  is  shed  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  Surely  liis  death  must  be  the  chief  thing 
represented,  or  there  is  no  meaning  in  the  emblems,  no  force  in 
our  Saviour's  language,  nor  in  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle, 
**  As  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show 
forth  the  Lord's  deaf/i."  As  therefore,  they  could  not,  in  the 
nature  of  tilings,  remember  his  death,  till  after  that  deatli  had 
taken  place,  it  follows  of  course,  our  Lord  intended  this  feast 
should  be  celebrated  through generations. 

But  here  comes  a  wonderful  objection  !  **  Matthew  and  John," 
says  Amicus,  **  were  the  only  Evangelists  present  at  the  feast." 
I  What  does  he  mean  by  this  ?  does  he  mean  to  insinuate  that 
Mark  and  Luke  might  have  been  mistaken  I  You  must  excuse  me, 
but  indeed,  I  do  look  upon  all  such  slights  put  upon  any  scrip- 
ture writer,  as  an  attack  on  inspiration.  Is  not  Moses  to  be  cre- 
dited in  his  account  of  the  Cr-ealion  and  Deluge,  events  which 
happened  many  centuries  before  his  time,  and  at  which,  of  course, 
he  was  not  present  ?  Is  not  the  Apostle  Faul  correct  in  his  state  - 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  our  Loi'd,  merely  because  he  did  not  see 
nor  hear  (in  the  flesh)  the  things  which  he  relates  ?  Are  Mark 
and  Luke  of  no  authority  in  tlieir  statements  concei-ning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  merely  because  they  were  *^  not  present"  at  its 
institution  I  Either  there  is  no  force  in  the  remark  of  Amicus,  or 
lie  intends  a  sly  reflection  on  the  infallibility  of  the  Evangelists. 
In  the  same  way  I  must  understand  what  he  afterwards  says, 
**Luke  is  the  o?i(2/ Evangelist  wlio  says,  do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me."  What  of  that !  is  not  he  enough  t  do  you  consider  tl^e 
17 


130 


Gospel  which  Luke  wrote  as  his  gospel,  the  words  as  Ais  words, 
or  the  words  dictated  hy  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  I  mean,  is  it  simply 
Luke  that  speaks,  or  the  Lord  speaking  through  him  ?  If  you 
assci  t  the  former,  you  deny  his  inspiration  ;  if  the  latter,  is  liot  one 
declaration  of  God  as  true  as  a  hundred  ?  To  me  me  declaration 
of  an  inspired  writer,  if  it  be  plain  and  unequivocal,  is  as  strong 
as  the  testimony  of  any  number  ;  because  I  view  it  not  as  his 
declaration  but  the  declaration  of  the  God  of  Truth.  But,  after 
all,  it  is  not  true  that  Luke  is  the  only  writer  who  mentions  this 
command.  The  Apostle  Paul,  as  will  be  seen  presently,  men- 
tions it  twice. 

Here  then,  wehave  the  testimony  of  God  himself  (or  Luke  w  as 
not  inspired)  tliat  Christ  commanded  the  observance  of  this  feast. 
How  can  you  get  over  this  without  denying  inspiration  ? 

Again,  you  object  the  silence  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  inti- 
mate he  thought  tlie  circumstance"  too  **  immaterial"  to  men- 
tion. And  so,  I  suppose,  he  thought  of  our  Lord's  Miraculous 
Conception,  Nativity,  Iiis  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  nine  tenths 
of  his  Miracles  !  for  none  of  these  does  he  mention.  The  fact 
is,  1.  After  the  other  Evangelists  had  given  such  explicit  testi- 
mony, and  the  ordinance  had  been  observed  and  established  for 
more  than  half  a  century  through  the  whole  church,  there  was  no 
need  of  further  testimony.  2.  His  Gospel  was  intended  as  a, 
supplement  to  the  other  gospels ;  accordingly,  from  the  middle 
of  the  sixth  chapter,  it  is  almost  wholly  new  and  different  from 
the  other  Evangelists.  3.  He  does  allude  to  this  ordinance,  and 
pay  it  a  high  compliment  in  his  first  Epistle,  v.  8.  making  it  a 
standing  witness  for  Chi-ist.  And  there  are  three  that  bear 
witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  tlic  Water,  and  the  Blood."  But 
not  to  dwell  on  this  testimony  at  present,  a 

Fourth  Witness  is  the  Apostle  Paul,  1  Cor.  xi.  23:  *'For 
I  have  received  of  the  Lor^l  that  which  I  also  delivered  unto  you, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night  in  \\hich  he  was  betrayed,^ 
took  bread;  and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and 
said.  Take,  eat,*  this  is  my  body  which  is  broken  for  you  ;  This 
do  in  remembrance  of  me.  After  the  same  manner,  also,  he  took 
the  cup,  saying,  This  cup  is  tlie  New-Testament  in  my  blood  ; 
This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  Sec,  &c." 
The  terms  **  rcceiveo''  and  *^  delivered"  which  occur  so  fre- 
quently in  the  writings  of  this  Apostle,  clearly  evince  the  cha- 
ractei*  in  A\  liich  he  vie\\  ed  himself  as  acting.  He  represents 
himself  as  the  mere  minister  or  servant  of  Christ,  receiving" 
first  from  him,  and  then  **  delivering"  what  he  had  received  to 
others.  In  tiiis  passage  then,  1.  He  plainly  declares  he  receiv- 
ed this  oj  dinance  of  ttic  Lord  Jesus  to  deliver  to  others,  thus 
asserting  its  Divine  origin.    2.  He  txvice  repeats  our  Saviour's 


131 


eommaiid  to  observe  it.  "  This  do  in  remembrance  ot*  me." 
3.  In  the  subsequent  verses  he  attaches  great  imporiance  and 
solemnitij  to  its  observance.  "  Whosoever  eateth  this  bread  and 
drinketh  this  cup  of  the  Lord  unwoi'thily,  sliall  be  gtiilty  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,"  or  guilty  of  murdering  the  Lord. 
And  again,  sucli  unworthy  communicants  bring  upon  themseh  es 
Divine  judgments,  even  sickness  and  death,  (verses  29,  and  30.) 
To  suppose  all  this  importance  attached  to  the  observance  of  an 
uncommanded  useless  ceremony,  (as  you  consider  this  feast,)  is  to 
suppose  the  Apostle  acting  a  solemn  farce!  4.  All  this  was 
written  twenty-seven  years  after  tlie  institution  of  tliis  sacra- 
ment, of  course,  long  after  he  had  had  time,  (if  he  needed  any 
time)  to  discover  the  Divine  will  upon  tliis  subject.  What  more 
is  necessary?  Here  are  four  inspired  witnesses,  all  express- 
ly testifying  to  the  Divine  authority  of  an  ordinance  which  you 
neglect  and  despise.  Our  Lord  says,  Take  eat,"  you  say, 
"  take  it  not !"  He  says,  Do  this  in  remembrance  of  mc ;" 
.  you  say,  **do  it  not !"  The  Apostle  says,  I  received  this  feast 
of  the  Lord  Jesus ;"  you  say,  he  was  mistaken  ! 

Here  I  might  with  perfect  safety  rest  this  subject.  Amicus 
miglit  as  easily  prove  our  Lord  did  not  command  Prayer  and 
Public  Worship,  as  that  he  did  not  institute  the  Lord's  Supper. 
But  he  has  said  some  things  of  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  which 
may  be  with  equal  ease  and  clearness  answered. 

His  Second  Objection  to  this  ordinance  was,  that  "  the 
Apostles  never  practised  it.^*  On  this  subject  I  would  remark, 
that  had  no  account  been  transmitted  to  us  of  their  celebrating 
this  feast ;  if  in  the  conciseness  of  the  sacred  history,  not  a  word 
had  been  said  about  it,  nor  an  allusion  made  to  it,  we  should 
hsixe  fairly  presumed  they  obeyed  the  injunction  of  their  I^ord  in 
this  particular.  The  institution  of  Christ  would  have  been  suf- 
ficient authority  for  practising  it  ourselves,  and  believing  that  the 
Apostles  practised  it.  But  we  are  not  thus  left.  V/e  have  the 
clearest  testimony  that  they  kept  this  feast.  Without  men- 
tioning other  passages,  I  am  willing  to  rely  on  three.  Acts  ii.  42. 
It  is  said  in  praise  of  the  primitive  disciples,  that  they  con- 
tinued steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and 
in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers."  Acts  xx.  7,  11  :  **Upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week  when  the  disciples  came  together  to 
break  bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them,  6cc."  To  these  two  pas- 
sages you  object,  that  the  breaking  of  bread"  here  mention- 
ed, '.ienotes  a  common  meal  ;"  in  proof  of  which,  you  quote 
chose  passages  which  speak  of  their  **  having  all  things  com- 
mon," and  eating  at  a  common  table.  To  which  we  answer, 
1.  This  '*  breaking  of  bread"  is  spoken  of  before  the  commn- 
'lioii  of  goods  took  place,  as  any  one  may  see  who  will  turn  to  the 


passage ;  of  coui'sc  lias  no  allusion  to  their  social  ordinary  meals. 
2.  It  is  spoken  of  as  a  religions  ceremony  and  a  proof  of  their 
piety  ;  "  tliey  contiiuied  steadfast  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in 
prayers."  K  most  wonderful  proof  of  their  piety,  if  break- 
irig  bread"  means  nothing  more  than  Amicus  understands  !  they 
continued  steadfast  in  ca^in^//  But  on  the  supposition  it  was 
a  sacramental  eating,  a  public  testimony  of  their  faith  in  Christ 
in  the  presence  of  his  foes,  it  was  a  re%io2/s  exercise,  and  very 
properly  mentioned  along  with  their  ♦*  prayers"  as  a  proof  of 
their  faith  and  boldness  in  confessing  Christ.  Besides  it  is  ex- 
pressly distinguished  from  eating  *'  meat,"  in  the  46th  \erse. 
And  breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat 
with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart." 

3,  That  this,  "  breaking  of  bread"  was  a  religious  ceremo- 
ny and  sacramental  feast,  is  evident  from  its  being  the  chief  ob- 
ject of  their  meeting  on  the  Lord^s  day.  Upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  &c." 
It  is  not  said  **  when  they  came  together  they  broke  bread," 
but  **  they  came  together  to  break  bread,"  This  was  their  chief 
object.  Now  is  it  not  a  most  gross  and  unworthy  idea  to  sup- 
pose they  came  together  on  that  solemn  day  to  eat  a  common  meal  ? 
And  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  holy  Apostle,  *<  ready  to  de- 
part on  the  morrow,"  at  such  an  aflecting  season,  would  coun- 
tenance such  gross  conduct  ?  Besides  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  argument  about  communion  of  goods,"  and  com- 
mon tables,"  however  it  might  apply  to  the  saints  at  Jerusalem, 
wouM  not  apply  at  Troas  where  no  sucl»  communion  was  known. 

4.  The  Syriac  version^  (the  earliest  version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, made  fov  the  use  of  the  Syrian  Chri.stians  about  Antioch, 
either  during,  or  immediately  after  the  Apostles'  days)  renders 
the  ])assage  they  came  together  to  break  the  eucharist ;"  and 
the  Arabic  version,  they  came  together  to  distribute  the  body 
of  Christ."  This  shows  how  early  Christians  understood  these 
passages. 

But  if  these  passages  were  all  blotted  out,  if  every  other 
chapter  of  the  New  Testament  was  silent  on  the  subject,  so  long 
as  the  xith  of  Corinthians  remains,  there  will  be  no  other  way 
of  setting  aside  this  ordinance,  but  by  denying  the  Apostle's 
inspiration.  The  passage  has  been  in  part  already  quoted.  The 
fact  that  the  feast  called  the  Lord's  Supper  was  observed  by  these 
Chr  istians,  is  too  plain  to  be  doubted.  Amicus  therefore  ad- 
mits *' these  Coi  inthians  were  some  how  in  the  habit  of  eating 
bread  and  drinking  wine  as  a  religions  ceremony Here  he  ac- 
knowledges that  the  feast  they  observed  was  not  for  a  car?ia^  but 

religions'^  pur])()se  ;  and  not  an  occasional  act,  but  an  habitat- 
al  practice.    They  were  *'  some  liovv  in  the  habit !"  some  how  ! 


133 


what  a  j)ity  Scripture  liad  not  given  Amicus  some  information 
on  this  subject  !  what  a  pity  he  was  driven  to  such  improbable 
conjectures,  and  left  in  such  darkness  as  to  the  original  of  this 
ceremony  !  Shall  I  suggest  a  key  to  discover  its  author  and  or- 
igin ?  You  will  find  it  in  the  23d  verse  :  I  received  of  the  Lord 
that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  yoniJ'^  They  received  this  ordi- 
nance from  the  same  source  from  which  they  received  their  doc- 
trines,  from  the  Jpostle  himself  /  *'  I  delivered  it  unto  you,'^ 
But  where  could  Paul  have  got  it?  Our  Lord  it  seems  **never  in- 
stituted it,"  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  "  never  practised  it,"  it  was 
inconsistent  with  the  present  dispensation,"  how  could  he  have 
come  by  it  ?  He  tells  us  himself,  "  I  received  it  of  the  Lord 
Jesus." 

The  public  can  now  judge  whether  our  Lord  appointed,  the 
Apostle  sanctioned,  or  tlie  primitive  Christians  practised  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

PAUL, 

Sefcnth-day-t  xoth  Mo.  zo,  1821. 

LETTER  XIV. 

AS  Paul"  in  his  last  address  to  us,  has  closed  his  arguments 
on  the  subject  of  Water  Baptism — before  I  enter  into  a  defence 
of  my  opinions  on  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  I  will  briefly 
notice  some  of  his  remarks  on  my  last  essay.  In  doing  this,  I 
shall  not  confine  myself  to  the  order  in  which  they  occur,  but 
take  them  uj)  as  they  appear  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  points  at 
issue. 

The  assertion  of  my  opponent  that  Amicus  has  not  only 
taken  ground  different  from  all  his  predecessors,  but  has  shifted 
his  own  ground'* — is  founded  in  an  unaccountable  mistake,  as 
will  be  perceived  by  a  reference  to  my  essay,  in  Letter  XIL 
How  such  a  mistake  should  occur,  seems  on  any  fair  principle, 
to  be  incomprehensible.  On  a  review  of  that  essay,  I  cannot 
perceive  any  ambiguity  in  the  expression  of  my  sentiments. 
"  PauP'  in  a  former  number  had  asserted  that  we  were  bound 
to  prove  that  the  Apostles  were  mistaken  in  interpreting  their 
Master's  mind  and  will  as  expressed  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  **Ami- 
cus"  answered  that  he  was  very  certain  they  never  were  mis- 
taken 071  this  point,  that  they  never  understood  our  Lord  to 
command  water  baptism."  To  demonstrate  that  in  the  fev/ 
exami)les  of  water  baptism  that  occurred  afterwards,  tliey  did 
not  act  by  virtue  of  that  commission,  I  shewed  that  they  never 
baptized  their  converts  *'in  the  name  of  tl)c  Father,  and  of  tlie 


134 


Son,  aiul  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  they  would  have  done,  if 
they  had  so  understood  him.  Tliis  argument  wliich  Paul  can 
never  answer,  without  contradicting  his  own  creed,  remains  un- 
touched hy  any  subsequent  reply.  The  Apostles  and  early  con- 
verts to  Christianity,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  a  variety  of  outward  forms  and  ceremonies  in  the  cele- 
bration of  their  worship,  and  which  were  wholly  inconsistent 
with  the  nature  of  tlie  Christian  dispensation,  in  which,  as  our 
Lord  tauglit  the  woman  of  Samaria,  tliey  that  worship  the 
Fathci*  must  worship  him  in  Spirit  and  in  truth."  Under  the  . 
New  Covenant,  no  teuiple  made  with  hands — no  outward  cere- 
mony— no  carnal  rite  is  necessary  to  that  communion  between 
Goil  and  the  soul  in  wliich  divine  worship  essentially  consists. 
This  truth  was  not  suddenly  perceived  by  the  first  professors  of 
the  Gospel,  and  they  continued  for  some  time  after  its  introduc- 
tion, to  use  many  of  the  Jewish  rites  as  well  as  the  peculiar  bap- 
tism of  John.  This  was  the  only  mistake  which  "  Amicus" 
ever  attributed  to  the  primitive  believers,  a  mistake  which  was 
corrected  by  the  gradual  increase  of  Divine  liglit,  by  tlie  rising 
splendor  of  the  Gospel  Sun,  under  whose  increasing  radiance 
the  weakness  and  inefficiency  of  typical  institutions  were  clear- 
ly discovered  and  pointedly  I'eprobated,  as  evidently  appears  by 
the  Apostolical  Epistles. 

**  What  a  man  does  by  the  agency  of  another,  he  does  him- 
self," is  very  true  :  If  Jesus  had  commanded  his  disciples  to 
baptize  witli  water,  it  might  with  sufficient  i)ropriety  be  said, 
*'he  baptized  ;"  but  that  he  ever  commanded  them  to  use  Water 
Baptism,  remains  to  be  proved.  When  the  Evangelist  says, 
John  iii.  22  :  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
into  the  land  of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  w  ith  them  and  bap- 
tized ;"  by  the  context  he  evidently  means,  **  and  they  baptized," 
for  directly  afterwards  he  declares,  that  Jesus  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples,"  John  iv.  2  :  **  When  therefore,  the  Lord  knew 
how  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized 
more  disciples  than  John,  (tliough  Jesus  himself  baptized  not, 
but  his  disciples,)  he  left  Judea  and  departed  again  into  Gali- 
lee," John  iv.  1,  2,  3.  The  rumour  that  Christ  was  any  ways 
concerned  in  the  administration  of  a  carnal  ordinance,  was  evi- 
dently offi3nsive  to  iiim,  he  //iire/bre  immediately  leaves  the  scene 
of  Water  Baptism,  and  retires  into  Galilee.  To  tliose  acquaint- 
ed with  the  Geogi'apliy  of  that  country,  the  cause  of  his  leaving 
Judea  will  be  evident.  The  river  Jordan  between  the  lake  ol' 
Gennesareth  and  the  Dead  Sea,  was  the  scene  of  Water  Bap- 
tism :  there  Jolin  and  the  disciples  of  Christ  baptized  their  con- 
verts. AVhen  our  Lord  knew  of  a  rumour,  that  lie  baptized  with 
fVater,  in  order  to  remove  a  suspicion  so  derogatory  to  the  Di- 


1S5 


vine  nature  of  that  glorious  dispensation  which  he  came  to  intro- 
duce, he  straightway  departed  from  the  scene  of  these  opera- 
tions, and  retired  into  a  country  where  this  carnal  ordinance 
had  never  heen  administered. 

With  Doddridge,  Campbell,  Parkhurst  and  others,  as  critics^ 
I  have  no  controversy,  but  when  as  commentators  they  attempt 
to  pervert  any  plain  text  of  Scripture,  I  shall  deny  their  authori- 
ty. Tlie  command  of  our  Lord,  Matt,  xxviii.  19  :  is  as  1  have 
shewn,  translated  with  accuracy.  Paul"  in  liis  eighth  Ad- 
dress to  us,  declared,  that  it  was  well  known  to  all  acquainted 
with  the  Greek,  that  the  word  rendered  teach,"  literally  sig- 
nified to  make  disciples."  In  my  succeeding  essay,  I  quoted 
the  original  word  with  its  meaning,  in  Latin  and  English,  that 
my  reader  might  be  able  to  judge  for  himself,  as  to  the  accuracy 
of  its  translation.  I  did  not,  like  my  opponent,  rest  the  case 
upon  a  bare  assei'tion. 

With  respect  to  matters  of  fact,  1  have  never  denied  tlie  au- 
-  thority  of  **  the  early  Fathers,"  yet  I  freely  confess,  that  I  rely 
on  their  authority  no  more  than  on  other  respectable  writers  of 
that  period.  I  do  not  consider  them  as  inspired  penmen,  and 
therefore,  their  credibility  rests  on  the  same  foundation  with 
that  of  all  other  historians. 

On  the  Apostolical  constitutions,  my  opponent  "  casts  a  long- 
ing, lingering  look,"  and  though  from  the  exposition  of  their 
real  character,  he  is  obliged  to  abandon  them,  yet  that  they  may 
pass  away  with  some  reputation,  he  tells  us,  that  **the  autlior 
of  them  was  only  one  of  seventy  witnesses,"  to  a  practice  that 
can  add  no  weight  to  his  argument,  unless  it  were  sanctioned  by 
the  authority  of  Christ.  But  who  were  these  se\  enty  wit- 
nesses !"  A  council  of  sixty-six  Bishops  in  the  third  century  when, 
the  church  had  grossly  apostatized  from  the  faith  and  practice 
of  the  Apostles !  Cyprian,  Origen  and  Fidus  of  the  same  period  ! 
Augustine  a  persecuting  Bishop  of  the  fifth  century  !  Pelagius 
and  Celestius,  two  monks  of  the  same  era  whose  doctrines  were 
alternately  applauded  and  condemned  by  the  Pope  of  Rome,  and 
whose  opinions  are  generally  held  in  abhorrence!  The  church 
which  my  opponent  calls  **the  church  of  Christ  for  thiiteen 
hundred  years,"  has  a  much  better  title  to  be  called  the  church 
of  Antichrist,"  it  was  a  corrupt  persecuting  church.  Against 
it  ^^  ickliffe,  Jerom  of  Prague,  Huss,  Luther  and  Calvin  pro- 
tested. From  its  errors  and  superstition,  the  Christian  World 
is  yet  but  partially  reformed. 

"  Paul"  asserts  that  **the  last  essay  of  Amicus,  contains 
nothing  of  importance  :"  By  this  assertion,  he  affords  us  a 
means  of  detei'mining  what  he  deems  unimportant.  First  he 
deems  it  of  no  impoi-tance  that  1  have  proved    the  early  Fathers 


136 


were  divided  in  sentiment  on  the  most  important  subjects,  and 
are  not  sufficient  authority  to  prove  the  truth  of  any  doctrine, 
or  the  purity  of  any  practice,  not  clearly  established  by  our 
Lord  or  his  Apostles  !  Secondly,  he  thinks  it  of  no  importance 
that  the  authorities  he  quoted  for  the  support  of  his  scheme,  are 
shewn  to  be  totally  unworthy  of  confidence  or  respect !  Thirdly, 
he  thinks  it  unimportant  that  I  have  proved  by  his  own  writings, 
that  he  is  inconsistent  with  himself!  Fourthly,  that  his  doctrine 
is  irrational,  unscriptural  and  absurd !  Fifthly,  that  ids  mode 
of  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  is  calculated  to  destroy  all  con- 
fidence in  the  sacred  text,  and  is  mischievous  to  tlte  cause  of 
Christianity  !  and,  Sixthly,  that  his  faith  is  a  carnal  faith,  rest- 
ing in  elementary  water,  in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  wash- 
ings, as  the  '*  important  means  of  salvation." 

But  Paul's"  assertion  can  be  considered  in  no  other  light 
than  mere  affectation.  He  lias  too  much  understanding  to  be 
perfectly  indifferent  to  the  weight  of  the  arguments  tliat  have 
been  adduced.  Although  Amicus  is  aware  that  the  excellent 
cause  he  has  espoused,  might  have  fallen  into  mucli  better 
hands — that  his  knowledge  and  experience  fall  very  far  sliort  of 
a  large  number  of  his  fellow  professors — that  his  literary  qual- 
ifications are  mean,  in  comparison  of  many  witii  whom  he  liolds 
religious  communion — yet  he  is  also  sensible  of  the  Divine  na- 
ture, and  happy  effects  of  the  doctrines  we  advocate — of  tiieir 
conformity  with  the  precepts  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles;  that 
Truth  however  feebly  advocated,  is  powerful  in  its  nature,  and 
with  the  candid  enquirer,  its  impression  will  not  be  easily  erad- 
icated. In  this  belief,  I  cheerfully  rest  the  case  ;  if  my  oppo- 
nent is  easy,  I  see  no  cause  why  I  should  not  be  satisfied. 

I  will  now  advert  to  Paul's"  attempt  to  reply  to  my  argu- 
ments, on  the  subject  of  the  **  Lord's  Supper." 
'  The  great  question  on  the  present  subject,  is  as  stated  by  my 
opponent,  *'  Did  our  Lord,  or  did  he  not,  institute  what  is  called 
the  Lord's  Supper  ?"  W  e  deny  that  he  instituted  any  supper  at 
all,  and  that  he  ever  celebrated  any  supper  but  the  Passover 
supper.  In  Paul's"  last  address  to  us  there  is  not  the  least 
proof,  although  there  is  much  assertion  to  the  contrary.  All  the 
evidence  he  has  adduced  on  this  point,  amounts  to  no  more  than 
this,  that  our  Lord  in  distributing  the  Bread  and  Wine  added 
some  expressions  never  before  used  on  that  occasion.  To  prove 
that  these  expressions  used  whilst  performing  the  ancient  cere^ 
monials  of  tlie  Passover  feast,  were  the  institution  of  a  new  Fes- 
lival,  "Paul"  brings  forward  three  Evangelists  as  evidences. 
We  will  now  attempt  to  examine  these  >Vitnesses,  and  sift  the 
testimony  which  they  give  us  on  this  subject.  That  our  Lord 
was  celebrating  the  Feast  of  the  Passovci'  when  he  used  tiies»; 


157 


expressions,  cannot  be  denied.  Matthew  says,  chapter  xxvi. 
26.  '•Andas  tlietf  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed 
it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  to  the  disciples,  saying,  take  eat.'* 
27  "  And  he  took  the  cnp  and  gave  thanks  saying,  drink  ye  all 
of  it."  The  taking  of  the  bread,  the  blessing  of  it,  and  break- 
ing it,  and  distributing  it  to  the  guests — the  taking  of  the  cup, 
and  giving  thanks,  and  handing  it  to  the  company,  were  the 
usual  rites  always  performed  by  the  governor  or  cliief  man  of 
this  feast.  In  doing  all  this,  our  Lord  certainly  instituted  no 
new  ceremony.  They  who  imitate  Him  in  these  particulars, 
so  far  celebrate  the  Jewish  Passover,  and  nothing  more.  We 
will  now  consider  the  other  testimony  of  these  Witnessess ; 
hitherto  they  have  only  confirmed  my  former  position.  ; 
^  Of  the  Bread,  our  Lord,  according  to  Matthew,  simply  says, 
••this  is  niy  body."  According  to  Mark,  he  uses  the  same 
words.  Luke  adds,  which  is  given  for  you,  this  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me."    Of  the  AVine,  according  to  Matthew,  he  says, 

'  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  for 
many,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Mark  says,  which  is  shed 
for  many."  Luke  says,  which  is  shed  for  you."  The  ques- 
tion now  is.  How  are  we  to  understand  tliese  words  ?  My  oppo- 
nent says,  ^'the  Holy  Scriptures  in  thc'w  literal  and  logical  sense, 
are  the  supreme  and  only  standard  of  religious  truth."  Now  if 
we  interpret  these  expressions,  literally  and  logically,  I  cannot 
see  how  we  can  reject  the  doctrine  of  *•  the  real  presence  :"  we 
must  either  give  up  theiv  literal  nieaning,  or  unite  with  the  Doc- 
tors of  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  will  however,  suppose  that  my 
opponent  will  he  willing  to  suspend  his  rule  m  tlie  present  case 
— that  he  will  abandon  their  literal  sense,  and  rely  upon  their 
hgimi  meaning.  I  do  not  know  wliat  otliers  may  tliink  of 
**  Paul's"  reasoning  in  this  case,  but  after  giving  it  the  best  at- 
tention'in  my  power,  I  cannot  discover  much  logic  our 
Lord  makes  his  material  body  and  blood,  a  tijjieovjigure  of  his 
Spiritual  body  and  blood.  John  vi.  53.  ^'  Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in 
you  :  whoso  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath  eternal 
life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day,  for  my  flesh  is  meat 
iiideed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed."  My  opponent  whose 
views  seem  remarkably  directed  to  carnal  objects,  takes  a  differ- 
ent course,  he  makes    the  broken  bread"  to  **  rejiresent  Christ's 

:  broken  body,  and  the  wine  his  blood."  Thus  he  makes  bread 
and  wine  to  be  the  type  of  a  type,  whicli  is  absurd.^  The  ti-uth  is, 
there  is  no  consistent  or  rational  method  of  interpreting  these 
passages,  unless  we  admit  that  our  Lord  intended  the  Bread  and 
AVine  as  figures  of  his  Spiritual  Body  and  Blood,  emphatically 
given  for  the  ••remission  oi  sins."    it  is  the  Divine  operation 


138 


this  Heavenly  food  on  ^<tl»c  fiiitliful  receiver,  which  purifier 
the  heart  and  prepares  for  the  full  fruition  of  Divine  enjoyment 
in  the  kingdom  of  God ;  **  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh 
my  hlood,  dwelleth  in  me,  and  I  in  him."    John  vi.  56. 

I  will  now  make  a  few  ohservations  on  the  expression,  ''This 
do  in  rememhrance  of  me;"  On  this  passage,  **Paul"  places 
much  reliance  for  the  su])port  of  his  carnal  scheme :  amongst 
other  notions,  not  very  logical,  he  thinks  there  can  be  no  remem- 
brance but  of  things  that  are  past.  There  is  however,  no  truth 
in  this  idea;  *'to  remember,"  is  to  call  any  thing  to  mind,  it 
not  only  relates  to  past  events,  but  to  things  present  and  future  : 
'*  Cruden"  says,  '*  the  word  remember,  w  hen  referred  to  God, 
signifies  to  care  for  one,  to  pity ;  w  hen  applied  to  men,  it  signi- 
fies, either  to  call  to  mind  something  past,  or,  to  keep  in  mind 
something  for  the  time  to  come."  My  learned  o})pc)nent  says, 
''  How  we  can  remember  a  thing  present,  and  mudi  more,  one 
that  is  to  come,  is  beyond  his  comprehension."  On  this  hypo- 
thesis, tlie  fourth  commandment  must  be  incomprehensible  : 
'•  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy."  When  Moses 
gave  this  command,  I  suppose  he  did  not  mean  that  the  Israel- 
ites should  remember  the  Sabbath  days  that  were  past,  **to 
keep  them  holy."  But  there  is  something  very  extraordinary 
in  **  Paul's"  idea,  that  *' in  remembering  the  Divine  Spirit,  there 
is  something  too  vague  for  common  minds,^*  According  to  tliis 
view,  we  must  suppose  that  the  Divine  admonition,  ''Remember 
tliy  Creator  in  the  da}  s  of  thy  youth,"  could  not  have  been  in- 
terided  for  common  minds  ;  the  idea  of  remembering  the  foun- 
tain of  all  our  comforts,  is  to  be  confjucd  to  uncommon  minds^ 

I  will  close  the  present  Essay,  with  some  general  remarks  on 
the  subject  in  discussion,  reser\  iiig  for  a  future  number,  my  ob- 
servations on  such  parts  of  "  Paul's"  last  Address,  as  may  re- 
quire an  answer. 

^  We  are  exhorted  by  our  Lord,  John  vi.  27  :  '^  not  to  labour 
for  that  meat  that  pcrisheth,  but  for  that  meat  which  endureth 
unto  everlasting  life."  The  Apostle  tells  us,  Rom.  xiv.  17: 
that  "the  Kingdom  of  God  is  not  [consists  not]  in  meat  and 
drink,  but  in  righteousness  and  ]>eace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
— that  meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God,  for  neither  if  we  eat  arc 
Ave  the  better,  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the  worse."  1  Cor. 
vii.  It  is  not  by  any  carnal  observation  that  the  "  soul  is  establish- 
ed w  ith  grace  :"  The  soul  of  man  is  Spiritual,  it  cannot  in  the 
nature  of  things  be  nourished  v.  ith  outward  food.  "  The  bread 
that  Cometh  down  from  Heaven — the  meat  that  endureth  unta 
everlasting  life,"  are  its  only  j)roper  aliment,  this  it  receives 
not  by  outwai-d  observations,  but  by  the  immediate  communica- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit:  "meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wash- 


139 


i  ugs"  are  the  peculiar  cliaracteristics  of  the  Mosaic  La^^ .  Un- 
der the  Gospel  (lispensatioii  the  real  Christian  draws  nigh  unto 
God  in  Spirit,  eats  Spiritual  hread,  drinks  living  water,  draws 
his  nourishment  from  Clirist  the  true  vine,  and  by  abiding  iu 
him  brings  forth  much  good  fruit  to  the  gloi'y  of  God,  and  the 
benefit  of  his  fellow  creatui*es. 

-  AMICUS. 

Saturday f  Del.  27.1811. 

LETTER  XIII. 

ON  THE  lord's  supper. 

The  fact  that'  the  Apostles  practised  and  commanded  wateT 
baptism,  is' too  plain  to  be  denied  or  doubted,  Acts  ii.  38.  viii. 
16,  38,  and  x.  48.  Now,  in  this  practice  they  either  were,  or 
.wei'e  not  mistaken.  Let  Amicus  take  whiy^h  side  he  please,  his 
system  must  fall.  If  he  holds  they  were  mistaken,  lie  so  far 
denies  their  inspiration,  and  contradicts  the  Scripture  whicli  as- 
serts that  they  were  filled  with  the  Spirit — spake  as  the  Spi- 
rit gave  them  utterance,"  and  were  led  into  all  truth  if  he 
holds  they  were  not  mistaken,  he  admits  the  proprietif  of  their  prac- 
tice, and  thus  gives  up  his  whole  argument.  So  far,  therefore, 
as  relates  to  the  jiresent  argument  it  is  a  matter  of  comparative 
indifference  which  side  he  takes.  It  will  however,  puzzle  any 
reader,  not  moi-e  penetrating  than  myself,  to  discover  from  his 
last,  which  side  he  intends  to  take. 

He  is  pleased  to  say,  **  I  have  shown  that  the  Apostles  never 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost."  If 
he  has,  I  presume  his  readers  have  forgotten  it.  For  my  part, 
I  must  beg  him  to  show  it  again,  as  it  has  entirely  slipped  my 
memory,  if  he  has  shown  any  such  thing.  The  mere  gmissioii 
to  record  the  form  in  full,  no  more  proves  that  they  did  not  fol- 
low their  Lord's  command,  than  the  omission  to  mention  circum- 
cision for  the  1400  years  between  Joshua  and  John  the  Baptist 
proves  that  this  rite  was  not  practised  millions  of  times.  We 
forget  ;the  conciseness  of  the  sacred  history.  We  might  as  well 
infer  they  did  not  **  teach"  their  converts  **  all  things  whatso- 
ever he  had  commanded  them,"  because  every  lesson  is  not  expli- 
citly stated.  But  I  ask  any  candid  reader  how  he  can  under- 
stand Acts  xix.  2,  3.  upon  any  other  principle  ?  John's  disci- 
ples say,  **  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  w  hether  thei^i  be  any 
Hdij  Ghost.  And  Paul  said  unto  them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye 
baptized  ?"  Does  not  this  imply  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  men- 
tioned at  baptism  ?    After  all,* however,  could  Amicus  prove 


140 


that  the  Apostles  never  used  the  precise  form  mentioned  by  our 
Lord,  (v  liich  lie  never  can)  it  would  only  prove,  as  some  Chris- 
tians hold,  that  that  form  is  unessential  to  the  validity  of  bap- 
tism ;  which  would  be  nothing  to  his  point,  unless  he  could 
prove  they  did  not  pi'actise  baptism  itself. 

On  this  subject,  Barclay  has  a  droll  conceit  at  which  Amicus 
also  seems  to  hint,  that  the  Apostles  did  not  baptize  in  conse- 
quencc  of  their  commission  ;  but  out  of  their  own  heads,  from  a 
mistaken  notion  of  expediency  practised  John's  baptism.  The 
objection  hardly  deserves  an  answer.  But  in  a  former  essay  I 
proved  from  Acts  xix.  5.  that  they  rehaptized  the  disciples  of 
John,  of  course  they  did  not  practise  John^s  baptism  ;  and  I  now 
refer  the  reader  to  Acts  ii.  38.  viii.  16.  and  x.  48.  which  show 
us  in  whose  name  and  by  whose  authority  they  baptized.  "Re- 
pent and  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Chnst,^'  The  Holy 
Ghost  had  as  yet  fallen  on  none  of  them,  only  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.''  And  he  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,''  &c.  Let  the  can- 
did reader  decide  wiiethcr  they  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  and 
by  the  authority,  and  with  especial  regard  to  the  commission  of 
their  Divine  Master. 

And  here  I  close  this  subject,  to  renew  the  consideration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper. 

In  my  last,  it  was  fully  proved  that  our  Lord  instituted^  the 
Apostles  sanctioned,  and  the  primitive  Christians  celebrated  the 
Lord's  Supper.  How  few  objections  can  be  brought  against  our 
sentiments  by  the  most  ingenious  disputant,  the  reader  has  alrea- 
dy seen  ;  I  shall  not  weary  his  patience  by  reviewing  wliat  he 
has  answered  as  he  read.  It  cannot  have  escaped  notice  how 
little  attention  Amicus  has  paid,  both  in  his  last  and  former  es- 
says, to  the  argument  drawn  from  1  Cor.  xi.  23 — 30.  He  knew 
that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  any  honest  man  to  answer  it,  and 
therefore  he  very  ca\  alierly,  though  very  wisely,  treats  it  with 
neglect.*  His  manner  of  treating  it  reminds  me  of  Paine's  an- 
swer to  the  question  whether  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  ever 
existed  ?  **  there  is  no  ground  either  to  believe  or  disbelieve 
This  is  a  very  convenient  w  ay  of  getting  over,  when  you  cannot 
answer  an  argument.  Tiie  fact  that  the  Apostle  Paul  **  deliver- 
ed" and  enjoined  this  ordinance  on  his  Corinthian  brethren, 
and  that  he  did  so  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  his  Di- 
vine Lord,  is  as  evident  as  any  truth  in  Scripture. 

Want  of  room  prevented  my  making  as  many  observations  on 
this  passage  of  Scripture  as  its  importance  deserved.  Let  me 
remark  then, 

1.  'Y\\e  Feople  to  whom  tliis  ordinance  was  "delivered," — 
tlie  Christians  of  Corinth.    They  were  Gentile  con^  ci-ts,  far  re- 


141 


moved  from  Judea,  the  land  of  ceremonies ;  and  tliereforc  not 
likely  to  adopt  such  an  ordinance  without  Apostolic  influence, 
or  a  divine  command. 

£.  Tlie  Person  who  delivered  it — the  Aj)ostle  Paul.  He  was 
appointed  the  special  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  had  the  clear- 
est views  of  the  spirituality  of  the  pi'esent  dispensation,  and  tlie 
greatest  fear  of  any  thing  like  Jewish  ceremonies.  He  therefore 
would  have  heen  the  last  one  to  deliver  such  an  ordinance  with- 
out tlie  clearest  signification  of  the  will  of  Christ. 

3.  The  time  when  the  Saviour  revealed  it  to  him  ; — many 
years  after  tlie  institution  of  the  feast.  If  as  you  suppose,  this 
ceremony  was  adopted  by  the  Apostles  and  disciples  from  a  7Jiis- 
taken  interpretation  of  the  last  words  of  their  dying  Lord  ;  is  it 
supposable,  that  our  Lord,  after  seeing  this  abuse  of  his  lan- 
guage, originating  and  perpetuating  a  **  carnal  rite"  in  his 
church,  should  repeat  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  many  years  after, 
the  very  words  which  had  led  his  brethren  and  the  whole  church 
astray  !  thus  exposing  him  to  fall  into  the  same  snare,  and  con- 
^Urming  the  whole  church  in  their  gross  error  ! !  Yet  this  worse 
than  absurdity  you  must  hold,  or  admit  that  our  Lord  intended 
this  ordinance  should  be  observed. 

4.  Consider  also  the  time  when  this  Epistle  was  written,  and  the 
Apostle  gave  the  ordinance  this  sanction,  A.  D.  60.  Thus  upon 
your  supposition,  the  Apostle  was  left  in  a  gross  error  for  twen- 
ty years  after  his  calling  and  commission ;  and  the  church  de- 
ceived by  the  inspired  servants  of  Christ  for  twenty  seven  years  ! 
Remember  also,  that  this  mistake  was  never  corrected  by  this  or 
any  other  Apostle,  and  the  Bible  has  been  left  by  C  hrist  to  come 
down  to  us  in  a  way  calculated  to  lead  every  humble  conscienti- 
ous follower  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  observance  of  a  rite  **  in- 
consistent with  the  present  dispensation !"  He  who  believes  this, 
will  believe  any  thing. 

Here  1  rest  the  argument.  On  this  broad  ground,  that  the 
Saviour  instituted,  the  Apostles  sanctioned,  and  early  Christi- 
ans observed  this  ordinance,  I  am  contented  to  rely.  If  Amicus 
tan  remove  this,  I  will  make  no  account  of  what  follows.  The 
above  arguments  I  wish  Amicus  to  answer ^7*s^,  and  tlien  I  will 
consent  that  the  following  considerations  pass  for  nought. 

I  would  now  submit  a  few  thoughts  on  the  utility  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup})er,  leaving  it  to  your- 
selves to  estimate  tlieir  value. 

1.  I  appeal  to  every  candid  observer,  if  these  ordinances  do 
not  honour  Christ  and  his  religion.  They  make  religion  visible. 
They  exhibit  Christ  as  an  object  of  faith,  hope,  love,  joy,  grati- 
tude and  adoration.  They  testify  to  his  Divinity,  Incarnation 
and  Sufferings.    Baptism  is  a  standing  witness  of  the  Trinity, 


14!^ 


original  sin  and  regeneration ;  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the  do*i- 
trine  of  vicarious  atonement  and  imputed  riglitcousness.  The 
one  speaks  vohimes  on  the  subject  of  Sanctification  :  the  otlier  on 
the  subject  of  Justification.  Both  are  memorials  t]»at  he  came 
by  water  and  blood,  not  by  water  only,  but  by  water  and  blood." 
(1  John  V.  6.)  If  preaching  glorifies  Clirist,  then  tliese  ordinan- 
ces glorify  him,  for  they  preach  loudly  to  the  humblest  capacity. 
If  a  public  profession  honours  Christ  and  his  religion,  thcii  these 
thus  honour  him,  for  tliey  are  a  public  profession.  They  are  a 
visible,  public  testimonial  of  our  faith  in  Christ,  and  entire  de- 
pendence on  him  for  salvation.  If  the  observance  of  a  festival 
to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  some  distinguished  individual,  is  an 
honour  to  him,  then  the  Lord's  Supper  honours  Christ,  as  it  was 
instituted  for  this  very  purpose  to  perpetuate  tlie  **  remem- 
brance" of  his  death.  Surely  then  these  ordinances  must  be 
useful, 

2.  They  are  projitable  to  Believers.  Is  it  desirable  that  Chris- 
tians should  know  and  believe  the  truth?  These  ordinances  con- 
tinually exhibit  tlic  most  important  truths.  They  help  to  pre- 
serve orthodoxy  in  regard  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  sal- 
vation, the  Trinity,  Divinity  of  Christ,  Original  Sin,  Regene- 
ration, Justification  and  Sanctification. — Is  it  desirable  Chris- 
tians should  be  separatedfrom  the  v.orld  Come  out  and  be 
separate  saith  the  Lord."  These  ordinances  require  them  to 
come  oiit  from  the  world,  to  renounce  the  world  and  enlist  on 
tlie  Lord's  side.  Is  it  desirable  Christians  should  be  united  and 
feel  that  they  are  one  ?  These  ordinances  bring  them  into  com- 
munion with  each  other.  The  cup  of  ble>ssing  which  we  bless, 
is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we 
break  is  it  not  the  comimuiion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  For  we 
being  many  are  one  bread  and  one  body^  for  v,  e  are  all  partakers 
of  that  one  bread."  1.  Cor.  x.  16,  17.  These  ordinances  tlien 
teach  tlic  saints  their  unity  in  faith,  hope,  love,  baptism.  Lord 
and  God,  and  thus  cement  them  in  brotherly  love.  **  For  by 
one  spirit  we  liave  all  been  baptised  into  one  body  (that  is  made 
members  of  the  same  church)  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink 
into  one  spirit."  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  Here  is  an  allusion  to  both 
the  sacraments,  teaching  us  that  the  design  of  both  is  to  unite 
lis  in  one  body,"  and  obligate  us  to  breathe  and  follow^  "  one 
spirit." 

Again ;  these  ordinances  are  useful,  inasmuch  as  tliey  lay 
Christians  under  more  sensible  obligations  to  live  a  pious  life. 
The  peculiar  garb  worn  by  Amicus,  betokens  him  a  Friend,  and 
Jays  him  under  a  j)owerful  obligation  to  observe  certain  peculi- 
arities of  speech,  manners  ami  conduct,  and  exposes  him  to  im- 
mediate detection,  reproacli  and  shame,  if  he  act  unbecoming? 


-143 


Ills  profession.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  distinguishing 
mode  of  dress  adopted  by  any  cliurch,  will  have  a  powerful  in- 
fluence in  controling  the  conduct  of  her  members.  So  much  so, 
that  whenever  a  member  of  such  a  church  falls  from  Iiis  duty, 
he  immediately  changes  his  garb  for  one  which  does  not  remind 
him  and  others  of  his  professional  obligations.  Now  I  am  not 
finding  fault  with  such  practices;  they  liave  their  use.  But  if 
these  badges  of  profession  are  useful,  upon  the  same  principle, 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  useful.  For  these  show  who 
profess  to  be  on  the  Lord's  side,  and  who  not.  They  lay  those 
who  observe  them  under  obligations  to  live  a  corresponding  life ; 
and  therefore  expose  the  professors  of  religion,  whenever  they 
transgress,  to  instant  reproach  and  shame  from  an  ever  watch- 
ful world.    And  though  their  observance  of  these  ordinances  is 

,  not  visible  except  in  church,  and  there  only  at  certain  times ; 
their  professions  are  remembered  by  the  world,  and  are  a  more 
powerful  restraint  than  even  modes  of  dress,  as  the  latter  only 

'  bind  their  honour  and  their  interest,  while  the  former  bind  their 
conscience  under  an  oath,  signature  and  seal.  The  main  differ- 
ence however  is,  that  modes  of  dress  are  badges  of  human  inven- 
tion, Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  badges  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment. 

That  these  ordinances  are  badges  of  Christianity  and  bonds 
of  duty  is  evident  from  many  passages  of  Scripture.  'Gal.  v.  3  : 
He  that  is  circumcised  is  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  By  pa- 
rity of  reasoning,  he  that  is  baptized  is  debtor  to  do  the  whole 
gospel,  or  is  bound  to  be  a  Christian.  Rom.  vi.  3  :  "As  many 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  been  baptized  into  his 
death  ;  we  are  buried  witli  him  by  baptism  into  death,  that  like 
as  Christ  was  raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we 
also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."    See  also,  Col.  ii.  11,  12  : 
and  Gal.  i^i.  27.    Baptism  then  binds  us  to  die  unto  sin,  and  to 
walk  in  newness  of  life."    Again 1  Cor.  x.  21  :  **  Ye  cannot 
drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils  : — ye  cannot  be 
partakers  of  the  Lord's  table  and  the  table  of  devils ;"  which 
plainly  shows  us  that  partaking  at  the  **  Lord's  table"  is  a.  pro- 
fession of  Christianity,  and  obligates  us  to  live  separate  from  the 
world  and  the  company  of  the  wicked.    Again;  *'This  cup  is 
the  new  covenant  in  my  blood,"  says  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  he  hand.s 
the  symbols  of  that  covenant  to  the  believer.    By  which  he  vir- 
f  tually  says,    if  you  are  willing  to  enter  into  covenant  with  me, 
I  take  this  cup  as  a  token  and  pledge  of  our  mutual  contract,-  I 
hereby  promise  to  be  your  God,  and  you,  if  you  accept  it,  prom- 
ise to  be  one  of  my  people."    Tiiis  cup  is  the  sign  of  the  cove- 
nant between  Ci»ristians  and  Christ.    Every  communicant, 
therefore,  has  entered  into  covenant  with  God,  and  is  under  the 


144 


most  solemn  obligations  to  live  a  holy  life.  Now  will  any  one 
be  so  uTu^easonable  as  to  deny  that  such  a  solemn  covenant  with 
God,  will  o])erate  as  a  restraint  uj^n  ))rofessors  of  religion,  and 
arm  their  conscience  against  sin  ?  Who  then  can  doubt  such 
an  ordinance  is  useful? 

Again;  they  lead  professors  to  self-examination,  If  thou 
believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest"  be  baptized,  said 
Phili])  to  the  Eunuch.  Baptism  therefore  is  a  loud  call  to  the 
candidate  to  examine  whether  he  hath  genuine  faith  in  Christ. 
So  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper:  **  Let  a  man  examine  him- 
self and  so  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup."  1  Cor.  v.  7: 

Christ  our  passovcr  is  sacrificed  for  us ;  therefore  let  us  keep 
the  feast  not  with  the  old  leaven,  neither  with  the  leaven  malice 
and  rvickednesSf  but  with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerittj  and 
triith,^^  They  thus  urge  us  to  a  reformation  of  our  lives,  and  a 
watchful  inspection  of  our  own  hearts. 

Since  then,  these  ordinances  exhibit  important  truth,  sejmrate 
Christians  from  the  world,  promote  union  and  communion  in 
the  body  of  Christ,  lay  professors  under  the  strongest  obliga- 
tions to  be  holy,  continually  remind  them  of  their  duty,  and  lead 
to  self-examination,  watchfulness  and  reformation,  and  since 
they  were  appointed  of  God  for  all  these  purposes,  why  should 
we  doubt  their  2dility  ? 

3.  They  are  useful  to  the  world.  They  are  standing  exhibi- 
tions to  those  who  do  not  read  the  Scriptures,  and  confirmation 
to  those  wlio  do,  that  without  the  cleansing  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  an  interest  in  the  Blood  of  Christ,  they  cannot  be 
saved.  Baptism  says  to  every  unbaptized  spectator,  *'you 
have  not  complied  with  one  of  the  conditions  of  salvation,"  be- 
lieve and  be  haptized,^^  The  Lord*s  Supper  says  to  every  non- 
communicant,  you  are  outside  of  tlie  visible  church,  an  alien 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  a  stranger  and  a  foreigner, 
while  Cliristians  are  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints  and  of  the 
household  of  God." 

Thus  these  ordinances  exhibit  truth,  convince  of  guilt,  alarm 
the  conscience,  point  to  the  path  of  duty,  lead  to  pi-ayer,  in  due 
time  to  a  public  profession  of  Christ,  and  thus  onward  to  salva- 
tion. Tliousands  of  sinners  have  been  awakened  at  baptismal 
and  comihunion  seasons,  and  millions  of  Christians  edified  and 
comforted. 

PAUL. 


14j 


Seventh-day tiithAfo.  3.  I82T, 

LETTER  XY. 

The  iimits  of  an  essay  foi*  the  Repository  are  too  narrow  to 
[jermit  nie  to  do  ample  justice  to  the  important  subjects  under 
liscussion,  to  give  a  clear  idea  of  our  principles  to  those  who 
lave  no  better  opportunity  of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  them. 
The  greatest  difficulty  I  have  had  to  encounter  in  the  present  con- 
roversy  has  been  to  condense  the  matter  which  appeared  essential 
o  a  clear  illustration  of  my  subject.  My  opponent  often  com- 
)lains  of  the  length  of  my*  essays,  and  I  confess  not  without 
;eason — if  they  were  much  shoi-ter,  he  would  have  sufticient 
ground  to  be  dissatisfied — yet  I  wonder  that  lie  should  venture 
o  express  his  feelings  on  this  occasion,  whilst  his  own  commu- 
lications  continue  to  be  at  least  as  long  as  mine.  Unmindful 
lowever  of  his  complaint,  I  purpose  to  pursue  my  original  plan, 
md  make  the  best  of  my  means  to  convey  information  to  the 
•andid  enquirer  on  the  subject  of  our  princii)les. 

Because  ximicus"  said,  '*that  Matthew  and  John  were  the 
nhf  Evangelists  present  at  the  feast  of  the  passover  whicli  our 
^ord  attended  for  the  last  time,  Paul"  attempts  to  make  his 
eader  believe  that  I  thought  Mark  and  Luke  mistaken  in  their 
Lccounts  of  this  festival. — He  *•  looks  upon"  my  statement  as 
^  an  attack  upon  inspiration^**  and  begs  me  to  excuse  him  for 
ntertaining  such  a  view. — On  this  account  "Amicus"  can  easi- 
y  excuse  him.  The  interests  of  his  carnal  scheme  are  so  deep- 
y  involved  in  the  establishment  of  this  idea,  that  he  may  well 
»e  pardoned  for  his  attempt.  The  inspiration  of  the  Apostles  is  so 
nseperably  connected  with  the  authority  of  the  sacred  writings, 
hat  if  Amicus  doubted  on  this  point,  all  his  arguments  might 
»e  rejected — but  this  finesse  of  my  opponent  cannot  avail — the 
vhole  of  my  communications  evidently  shew — that  I  am  no  seep- 
ic  in  the  case.  I  have  not  only  admitted  the  authority  of  the 
scriptures,  but  I  have  contended  with  my  opponent  for  their  ex- 
liisive  authority,  as  the  only  legitimate  evidence  of  doctrinal 
ruth.  When  I  mentioned  the  total  silence  of  the  Apostle  John 
m  the  subject  of  the  Eucharist,  I  did  not  mean  to  infer  that  the 
estimony  of  the  other  Evangelists  was  incompetent  to  establish 
he  fact,  that  *•  onr  Lord  used  some  cicpressioiis  peculiar  to  that  oc- 
asion**  Tlie  only  inference  that  I  intended — I  yet  see  no  rea- 
j.on  to  condemn — which  is,  that  If  the  Evanglist  had  believed 
^as  my  opponent  does)  that  Christ  at  that  time  had  instituted  a 
:eiLV  ordinance  hmding  upon  Christians — to  be  observed  in  the  church 
0  the  end  of  time — to  be  a  badi^e  of  christianitif  and  a  seal  of  grace'* 
le  would  not  have  omitted  to  mention  a  fact  of  so  much  import- 
uce.  The  truth  is  that  Jolni  wrote  his  Gospel  in  the  maturity 
19 


146 


of  religious  experience,  when  the  inconsistency  of  carnal  ordi- 
nances with  the  Cliristian  dispensation  was  clearly  manifest  to 
his  enlightened  understanding.  In  all  his  writings  he  never 
mentions  one  word  on  the  use  of  Bread  and  Wine  as  a  religious 
act.  If,  as  my  opponent  observes  'Miis  Gospel  was  intended  as 
a  supplement  to  the  other  Gospels,"  he  ought  to  have  been  the 
more  particular  on  this  subject,  seeing  none  of  his  predecessors 
mention  the  use  of  these  elements  as  a  new  Institution,  nor  give 
us  the  least  reason  to  believe  that  Christ  meant  to  perpetuate  it 
in  his  church.  All  the  plausible  arguments  used  to  prove  it  a 
standing  ordinance  hang  upon  this  one  exjuTssion  of  Luke  Tliis 
do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  a  very  incompetent  foundation  for 
the  gorgeous  superstructure  w  hich  the  sacramentaries  have  erect- 
ed upon  it.  As  I  have  before  observed,  the  command  of  our 
Lord  is  in  the  present  tense  *'This  do" — Do  what?  take  the 
broad  w  hich  I  have  given  you  and  eat  it  in  remembrance  of  me — 
let  your  attention  be  directed  to  its  spiritual  import — Thig 
bread  is  my  Body" — it  represents  my  mystical  flesh,  which  is 
given  for  the  life  of  the  world — This  cup  is  the  new  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood" — it  represents  the  new  covenant,  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Spirit,  my  spiritual  blood  "which  is  shed  for  you." 
Matthew^  says  this  is  my  blood  of  the  J\''ew  Testament  which 
is  shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins."  To  those  who 
recur  to  the  original  meaning  of  the  word,  "  Testament"  the 
import  of  these  expressions  must  be  obvious — A  Testament," 
signifies  a  compact,  a  covenant — tJie  blood  of  the  new  covenant  is 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  pow  erful  operation  of  w  hicli  on  the  soul  of 
man  purifies  it  from  all  iniquity,  and  remits,  not  only  the  guilt, 
but  the  potver  of  sin.  This  new^  co^  enant"  is  expressly  de- 
scribed by  the  Apostle  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  as  the  min- 
istration of  the  **  Holy  Spirit,*'  the  law  written  in  the  heart." 
See  Heb.  viii.  8.  &c. 

The  attentive  reader  of  Evangelical  History  must  have  ob- 
served that  it  was  the  common  i)ractice  of  our  Lord  to  give  a 
spiritual  meaning  to  outward  objects — to  dii-ect  the  attention  d 
his  hearers  to  the  divine  import  of  natural  tilings — Thus,  to  the 
woman  of  Samaria,  wlio  seemed  to  have  a  religious  veneration 
for  Jacob's  well,  he  spoke  of  living  water."  If  thou  knew  est 
the  gift  of  God  and  who  it  is  that  saith  unto  thee,  give  me  \A 
drink,  thou  wouldst  have  asked  of  him  and  he  w  ould  have  given 
thee  living  water, John  iv.  10.  W  hen  she  spoke  of  outwarc 
places  of  worship,  he  immediately  directed  her  attention  to  sph 
ritual  worship.  W  oman  believe  me,  the  hour  «ometh  when  y< 
shall  neithci  in  this  mountain,  nor  yet  «at  Jerusalem  worship  the* 
Fitthor — '1  lit  iiour  cometh  ijid  now  is  w!  en  thr  true  worshipperi 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  Spirit  and  in  truth,"    John  iv.  21 ' 


14/ 


03,  Again,  Wlien  the  multitu^le  sought  him  tor  the  sake  of  tlic 

bread  with  which  he  miraculously  fed  them,  he  rebuked  them 
for  their  carnal  religion,  and  turned  their  views  to  heavenlif 
bread'' — Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ye  seek  me  not  because 
ye  saw  the  miracles,  but  because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves  and  were 
filled  ! — Labour  not  for  the  meat  that  perishetli,  but  for  that  which 
endureth  unto  everlasting  life^  which  the  Son  of  man  shall  give 
unto  you.    I  am  the  bread  of  life.'^    John  vi.  26,  27,  48. 

When  they  told  him  of  the  manna  given  in  the  wilderness,  lie 
replied  "  Moses  gave  you  not  that  bread  from  heaven,  but  my 
Father  givetb  you  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  for  the  Bread  of 
God  is  he  which  cometh  dow  n  from  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto 
the  world."  John  vi.  32,  33 — I  could  cite  many  more  passa- 
ges to  illustrate  this  view,  but  I  wish  to  be  as  brief  as  the  nature 
of  my  concern  will  admit,  and  think  it  unnecessary. 

Thus  we  see  that  our  Lord  sought  frequent  opportunity  to 
turn  the  attention  of  his  followers  to  divine  and  spiritual  ob- 
-jects  :  my  opponent  pursues  a  different  course — he  takes  much 
pains  to  direct  our  views  from  spiritual  to  carnal  objects,  to  in- 
duce us  to  turn  from  the  divine  reality,  and  embrace  the  shadow 
— to  depend  upon     meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings''  as 

important  means  of  salvation." — But  it  will  not  do — Christ 
remains  to  be  the  immediate  and  only  "  author  of  eternal  salva- 
tion to  all  them  that  obey  him,"  Heb.  v.  9  :  ^*That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh" — outward  ordinances  can  only  ope- 
rate on  physical  matter — ^they  cannot  reach  the  soul — they  may 
be  observed  by  the  unregenerate  and  the  wicked — they  are  con- 
sequently no  ^* Badge  of  Christianity"  nor  ''seal  of  grace." 
The  views  of  my  opponent  on  this  subject  are  irrational  and  un- 
scriptural — they  are  derogatory  to  the  divine  nature  of  Christi- 
anity, they  are  calculated  to  do  infinite  mischief  by  creating  a 
false  dependance  on  things  that  cannot  profit  the  soul,  they  lead 
the  mind  from  the  only  adequate  pow  er  of  salvation,  to  lifeless 
forms  and  inefficient  ceremonies. 

I  When  Christ  called  the  bread  '*  his  body"  and  the  cup  the 
new  testament  in  his  blood" — he  w  as  only  pursuing  his  usual 
r.ourse  ;  he  w  as  simply  directing  the  attention  of  his  disciples  to 
divine  objects.  Sitting  with  them  at  the  Passover  Supper,  and 
being  about  to  leave  them,  he  gave  them  tlie  parting  advice  of  a 
dying  friend — advice,  when  rightly  understood,  more  important 
in  its  nature  than  had  ever  flowed  from  human  lips.  It  was  an 
admonition  to  mind  spiritual  things,  to  remember  the  only  proper 
murishment  of  thesoid,  '*  the  meat  that  endureth  unto  everlasting 
life,"  the  new  wine  of  the  kingdom,"  tlie  animating  princi- 
ples of  all  true  piety. 

I  have  before  stated  that  the  Apostle  John  has  never  in  any  of 


148 


liis  w  ritings  mentioned  one  word  on  the  use  of  bread  and  wine 
'  as  a  religious  act.  Paul"  says  in  his  twelfth  Letter  to  us, 
that  John  **  does  allude  to  this  ordinance,  and  pays  it  a  high 
compliment  in  his  first  Epistle  v.  8.  making  it  a  standing  wit- 
ness for  Christ.  *<And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in 
Earth,  the  Spirit  the  water  and  the  blood" — he  omitted  to  add 
*<and  these  agree  in  one,"  but  how  the  Evangelist  in  this  text 
pays  *he  ceremony  of  eating  bread  and  wine,  **  a  high  compli- 
ment." I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  determine — the  weakness  of 
such  an  argument  tends  rather  to  injure  than  support  a  weak 
cause. 

I  come  now  to  consider  the  Testimony  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on 
this  subject — ^*  the  touktu  witness"  summoned  by  my  oppo- 
nent. An  attentive  perusal  of  the  11th  chapter  of  the  1st  Epis- 
tle to  the  Corinthians  will  1  apprehend  convince  any  unpreju- 
diced  reader  that  its  enlightened  author  was  not  very  friendly  to 
this  ceremony — but  as  **  Paul"  considers  the  passage  of  great 
importance  to  him,  I  will  endeavour  more  pai-ticularly  to  ex- 
plain my  views  of  it,  and  to  shew,  that  when  closely  examined, 
it  affords  no  solid  argument  in  favour  of  perpetuating  the  use  of 
bread  and  wine  as  a  religious  act.  That  the  Corinthians  were 
in  the  practice  of  this  ceremony  has  been  admitted — a  fact,^ 
which,  in  the  carnal  and  contentious  state  of  that  church,  does 
not  speak  much  in  its  favour.  Their  practice,  unless  they  act- 
ed under  divine  authority,  furnishes  us  with  no  w  arrant  to  fol- 
low their  example.  My  opponent  strives  to  prove  that  the 
Apostle  introduced  it  amongst  tliem,  but  he  is  unsuccessful,  as 
I  shall  endeavour  to  sliow — He  asserts  that  *'the  Apostle  de- 
clared  that  he  received  this  ordinance  of  the  Lord  Jesus" — but  how 
he  should  receive  an  ordinance  from  Christ  which  our  Lord  nev- 
er instituted  is  somewhat  mysterious !  The  Apostle  however 

declares^^  no  such  thing — he  says  **I  have  received  of  the 
Loi-d  that  w  hich  1  also  deli^  ered  unto  you — that  the  Lord  Jesus 
the  same  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread  and  when  ht 
had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it  and  said — take  eat  this  is  my  body 
nhich  is  broken  for  ymi  kc.  Now,  the  question  is — What  did  the 
Ai)ostle  receive  ?- — clearly  nothing  hut  a  narration  of  matters  of 
fact,  in  nearly  the  same  words  as  the  Evangelists  record  them. 
And  what  did  he  deliver! — precisely  the  same  that  he  received! 
He  only  related  the  circumstances  that  occurred  at  the  Passover 
Suj)per.  He  did  not  assert  that  he  was  commanded  either  to 
imitate  this  transaction  himself  or  to  cause  them  to  imitate  it; 
and  this  w  as  essentially  necessary  to  its  institution  as  an  ordi- 
nance. To  assert  tliat  the  words  **This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me,"  is  such  a  command,  is  miserably  to  beg  the  question*  j 
These  words  w  ere  a  part  of  the  narration,  the  very  same recoitl- 


149 

ed  by  Luke.  They  were  the  words  of  our  Lord,  not  to  Paul, 
but  those  who  sat  at  table  when  they  celebrated  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over— and  (as  I  think  has  been  clearly  demonstrated)  never 
were  intended  as  the  ground  work  of  a  new  ordinance — the  type 
or  figure  of  a  figure  or  type." 

But  we  have  other,  and  as  I  conceive,  irrefutable  evidence 
that  the  Apostle  never  delivered  this  as  an  ordinance  to  the  Co- 
rinthians. In  the  second  verse  of  the  same  chapter  in  wliich  ho 
so  severely  reproves  them  for  their  scandalous  conduct  in  the  per- 
formance of  this  ceremony — he  praises  them  for  the  right  observ- 
ance of  the  ordinances  which,  he  delivered  to  them.    1  Cor.  xi,  2. 

Now  I  praise  you  brethren  that  you  j*emember  me  in  all  things 
and  keep  the  ordinances  as  I  delivered  them  unto  you      Let  us 
now  for  a  moment  suppose  that  the  Eucharist,  as  it  is  termed, 
was  one  of  these  ordinances — and  what  is  tlie  consequence  ?  It 
is  either  that  the  Apostle  said  what  was  not  true,  or  that  he  estab- 
lished an  institution  to  promote  gluttony  and  drunkenness.  If  the 
-  Eucharist  was  one  of  them,  he  at  the  same  time  praises  them  for 
keeping  it  as  he  delivered  it  unto  them,  and  severely  rebukes  them 
for  keeping  it  in  the  most  disgraceful  manner! ! !  1  Cor.  xi.  17, 
21,  22.    **  Now  in  this  I  declare  unto  you  I  praise  you  not,  that 
[|   ye  come  together  not  for  the  better  but  for  tlie  worse" — "  for  in 
eating  every  one  taketh  before  other  his  own  supper,  and  one  is 
hungry  and  another  is  drunken  !  What  t  have  ye  not  houses  to 
.   eat  and  drink  in,  or  despise  ye  the  church  of  God,  and  sliame 
them  that  have  not  ?  What  shall  I  say  unto  you  ? — Shall  I  praise 
you  in  this  ?  I  praise  you  not.'*    Upon  the  hypothesis  of  my  op- 
'    ponent,  tlie  Apostle  is  a  most  contradictory  writer — which  I  am 
l»    not  willing  to  believe. 

There  has  hardly  ever  been  a  subject  of  dispute  in  the  church, 
wliich  has  occasioned  so  much  division,  contention  and  blood- 
i   shed  as  this  useless  ceremony.    Schisms,  suffering,  and  disgrace 
,   to  the  professors  of  Christianity,  mark  its  progress.    It  began 
]   after  tlie  institution  of  Christianity  with  the  mistaken  Corinthi- 
'   ans.    Its  birth  was  signalized  by  heresies  and  drunkenness — 
its  maturity  is  famous  for  its  faggots  and  its  fires — its  old  age 
for  weakness  and  imbecility.    See  1  Cor.  xi.  19,  21  :  Also 
Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments.    And  what  has  Christianity  gain- 
j    ed  by  it,  to  compensate  for  all  these  disadvantages  ?  This  is  i\ 
i    most  important  query.    Let  the  serious  candid  Christian  deeph 
1    ponder  it,  and  solemnly  answer  it  to  his  own  heart. 
I        I  will  now  recur  to  the  subsequent  part  of  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  first  Corinthians  and  attempt  to  answer  my  opponent's 
arguments,  founded  on  some  expressions  of  tlic  Apostle,  who, 
*    he  says,  "  attaches  great  importance  to  the  observance  of  this  , 
oremony"—<<  Whosoever  eateth  this  bread,  and  drinketh  this 


150 


cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  he  guilty  ol  the  Body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord" — Such  unworthy  communicants  bring 
upon  themselves  Divine  judgments  even  sickness  and  death" — 
*^to  suppose  all  this  importance  attached  to  the  use  of  an  uncom- 
manded  useless  ceremony  is  to  suppose  the  Apostle  acting  a 
solemn  farce."  But  we  will  neither  admit  this  supposition,  nor 
its  consequence,  for  reasons  which  shall  be  shewn.  When  an 
individual  practices  any  religious  ceremony  whatever,  whether  it 
be  auihorized  by  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  or  not — whether  it  be 
eating  bread  and  drinking  wine,  whether  it  be  offering  burnt 
sacrifices,  or  pouring  out  drink  offerings — if  he  pei'form  it  un- 
worthily— knowing  that  he  is  not  in  a  state  of  repentance,  he 
involves  himself  in  the  greatest  guilt — he  is  acting  the  hypocrite, 
not  only  before  men,  but  in  the  more  immediate  presence  of  his 
Creator — he  is  said  to  be  guilty  of  the  Body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
because,  he  is  in  the  same  state  of  mind  as  they  wlio  crucified 
the  Lord  of  glory.  The  Apostle  however  does  not,  as  my  op- 
ponent asserts  *'  attach  great  importance  and  solemnity  to  the  ob- 
servance of  this  ceremony," — he  attaches  the  great  importance  to 
the  hypociitical  practice  of  it,  and  he  might  with  equal  truth  have 
attached  great  importance  to  the  hypocritical  offerings  of  any  dis- 
ciple of  Moses.  He  tliat  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily, 
eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  himsell."  ver.  29.  And  like- 
wise he  that  offereth  a  Burnt  offering  unworthily,  offereth  vio- 
lence to  his  own  soul.  The  degenerate  Jews  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah  made  such  offerings  and  were  severely  reproved :  ^'To 
what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me,  saitli 
the  Lord,  bring  no  more  vain  oblations — incense  is  an  abomina- 
tion unto  me — the  new  moons  and  the  Sabbaths,  the  calling  of 
assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with,  it  is  iniquity,'^  Isaiah,  i.  11, 
13.  From  tlic  expressions  of  the  Apostle  quoted  by  my  oppo- 
nent, no  conclusion  can  justly  be  drawn  in  favour  of  typical  or- 
dinances. He  found  the  Corinthians  in  a  low  carnal  state — 
attached  to  outward  shadowy  ceremonies — he  did  not  forbid  tlie 
use  of  them,  because,  they  were  too  weak  to  bear  it — he  who 
circumcised  Timothy  in  condescension  to  the  Jews,  indulged  the 
Corintliians  in  a  practice  which  they  could  not  yet  abandon. 
For  all  this  he  gives  us  a  very  satisfactory  reason.  And  I 
brethren  could  not  speak  inito  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto 
carnal  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ — I  have  fed  you  with  milk 
and  not  with  meat,  for  hithei'to  ye  were  not  able  to  bear  it,  neither 
yet  are  ye  now  able,  for  ye  are  yet  carnaU'  1  Cor.  iii.  1,  2,  3. 

For  want  of  room  to  ])ursue  the  subject  further  at  this  time,  I 
will  conclude  with  some  observations  on  a  part  of  "  Paul's"  last 
address  to  us,  which  relates  to  Water  Baptism  ;"  my  remarks 
on  the  remainder  I  will  leave  for  a  future  number. 


151 


My  opponent  says,  ^'  Now  in  the  practice  of  water  baptism, 
liie  Apostles  either  were  or  were  not  mistaken.  Let  Amicus 
take  which  side  he  please,  his  system  must  fall.  If  he  holds 
they  uoerc  mistaken,  he  so  far  denies  their  inspiratioiu'* — If  he 
holds  they  were  not  mistaken,  he  admits  the  propriety  of  their 
practice,  and  thus  gives  up  his  whole  argument.  This  state- 
ment puts  one  in  mind  of  tlie  old  Spanish  proverb,  When  a 
man  gets  wTong,  he  needs  good  eyes."  My  heedless  opponent 
has  run  himself  into  the  toils  he  had  laid  for  me,  and  contradicts 
himself.  "It  is  a  fact,  that  the  Apostles  practised  circumci- 
sion, legal  vows  and  Jewish  sacrifices.  Now,  in  this  practice, 
they  either  were  or  were  not  mistaken — let  Paul"  take  which 
side  he  pleases,  he  gets  entangled  in  his  own  net. — If  he  admits 
that  they  were  mistaken,  he  so  far  denies  their  inspiration — if 
he  holds  they  were  not  mistaken,  he  admits  the  propriety  of  the 
practice,  and  upon  his  own  principles,  we  are  noxv  bound  to  prac- 
tice and  perpetuate  circumcision  and  other  Jewish  ordinances  in 

'  the  church  of  Chnst  11  In  contending  for  the  unlimited  inspiration 
of  the  Apostles  in  all  their  practices ^  *'Paul"  plainly  contradicts 
himself.  In  Letter  IX,  he  says  expressly,  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  in  offering  sacrifices  at  Jerusalem  at  the  request  of  James, 
acted  contrary  to  his  own  judgment  and  the  judgment  of  James, 
and  that  this  was  a  weak  compliance  with  Jewish  prejudices.'" 
He  says  that  "  Paul  circumcised  Timothy  because  of  the  Je%vs,^* 
and  that  Peter  disapproved  his  own  weakness"  in  compelling 
the  Gentiles  to  live  according  to  the  Law !  Now  I  would  ask, 
was  Paul  inspired  to  act  contrary  to  his  own  judgment  ?  was 
James  inspired  wlien  he  requested  Paul  to  offer  sacrifices  at  Je- 
rusalem, in  a  weak  compliance  with  Jewish  prejudices  ?  was 
Paul  inspired  to  circumcise  Timothy,  or  did  he  do  it  because  of 
the  Jews?  was  Vetev inspired  **not  to  walk  uprightly  according 
to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  ?"  and  if  he  were  so,  was  Paul  inspired 
to  withstand  him  to  the  face  because  he  was  to  be  blamed  ?  or, 
was  Barnabas  inspired  when  he  was  carried  away  with  tlie  dis- 
simulation  Peter  and  the  other  Jews?  See  Gal.  ii.  11,  12,  13, 
14.  My  opponent's  system  is  a  mass  of  incongruity  and  self 
contradiction !  it  falls  to  pieces  for  want  of  cement ;  it  has 
neitlier  symmetry  of  design,  nor  coherence  of  ])ai'ts. 

To  suppose  that  the  Apostles  were  always  under  the  immedi- 
ate influence  of  divine  inspiration,  is  irreconcilable  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  their  history.  They  were  men  of  like  passions 
with  us — they  were  subject  to  weaknesses  and  prejudice,  and 

j  sometimes  acted  under  their  influence.  Their  religious  judgment 
was  not  matured  in  a  day.  They  advanced  by  a  regular  pro- 
gression in  the  knowlecSge  of  Divine  things,  to  the  state  of  man- 

I   hood  in  Christ.    All  that  the  Christian  can  rationally  or  con- 


152 


sisteiitly  contend  lor,  in  order  to  establish  the  authority  ol' 
THE  Holy  Scriptures  is  that  they  were  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,"  that  however  the  Apostles  may  in  their  practice 
have  manifested  the  infirmity  of  our  common  nature,  yet  that 
when  they  wrote  to  the  churches  they  wrote  under  the  immediate 
injluence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Thus  we  sec  that  *^  Amicus"  can,  consistently  with  the  Sa- 
cred Writings,  admit  the  fallibility  of  the  Apostles,  can  grant 
that  they  were  not  perpetually  inspired  without  "  giving  up  his 
w  hole  argument"  or  any  portion  of  it — without  the  fall  of  his 
svstem  or  the  injury  of  its  parts." 

AMICUS. 

Saturday  J  Nou.  3j  iZzi. 

PAUL  TO  AMICUS. 

What  subject  you  will  discuss  the  present  wxek,  I  know  not; 
but  think  it  probable  you  will  not  yet  leave  the  former  topics. 
I  shall  be  happy  to  find  you  have  at  length  given  your  views  of 
the  Scriptures  and  of  inspiration.  As  you  appear  to  be  exhaust- 
ed on  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  ought,  by  this  time,  to  be  wil- 
ling to  relinquish  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper ;  if  you  will  not 
give  us  your  full  sentiments  on  the  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
permit  me  to  request  your  sentiments  on  another  subject.  You 
some  time  since  declared  it  to  be  your  object  to  give  a  fair  and 
candid  statement  of  the  principles  of  Friends,  that  the  erroneous 
opinions  of  other  sects  concerning  them  might  be  corrected  and 
removed.  Now  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  most  judicious  men  of 
otlier  sects,  and  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  has  been  the  opinion  of 
such  ever  since  your  society  arose,  that  you  do  not  hold  the  doc- 
trine of  the  TRINITY.  Without  justifying  the  abusive  epithets 
licaped  upon  you  by  Mosheim  and  his  translator  Maclaine^  you 
arc  aware  that  both  of  them  consider  you  as  denying  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith.  Evans,  in  his  Sketch 
and  Tersuasion  to  Religious  Moderation,"  says  that  on  some 

capital  points  of  Christianity,  they  have  not  yet  explained 
themselves  authentically."  J\^eal  in  his  History  of  the  Puritans, 
speaking  of  your  society  in  its  earliest  stages,  says  "tliey  det  icd 
the  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  And  I  know  that  many 
modern  Christians  and  Divines,  entertain  the  same  opinion. 
Now,  if  we  are  wrong,  will  you  not  set  us  right. 

If  I  recur  to  your  own  writers,  I  find  nothing  but  silence,  or 
wliat  is  worse  than  silence  on  this  subject.  fVilliam  Fenn  says 
Just  enough  to  sliow  that  he  rejected  the  commonly  received  doc- 


153 


frines  as  a  "  gross  notion,"  but  no  where  tells  us  v\ 'lat  lie  di il 
believe  upon  the  subject.  Barclay  in  his  long  treatise  oC  iiearly 
six  hundred  octavo  pages,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  nrccr  alludes  di- 
redly  to  the  sul^ect/  In  his  first  chapter,  after  some  preliminary 
remarks,  he  draws  tliis  conclusion,  (quoted  from  anothor)  **know 
that  the  mam  foundation  of  piety  is  this,  to  liave  right  appre- 
hensions of  God.^^ — and  yet  heiT.  the  chapter  ends! ! — He  imme- 
diately passes  to  another  subject,  and  through  the  volume  I  do 
not  observe  a  single  hint  of  any  tiling  like  a  distinction  of  Per- 
sons in  the  Godhead.  Kersey  in  his  Treatise  written  pai-tly 
for  the  information  of  such  as  are  strangers  to  tlie  Society  of 
Friends,"  says  not  a  wor<l  on  this  fundamental  article  of  Chris- 
tianity. NoW  to  me  this  silence  speaks  volumes.  Till  lately  it 
could  not  be  proved  against  the  Boston  Socinians  that  they  ever 
preached  a  word  against  the  Divinity  and  Atonement  of  Christ: 
hut  it  could  easily  be  proved  they  said  nothing  in  favour,  or  on 
the  sub  ject  of  these  important  doctrines.  And  they  have  since 
-avowed  their  heresy,  Tuke,  one  of  your  modern  liistonans 
says,  some  of  the  teachers  of  tlie  Cliristian  church,  about 
tiii'ee  hundred  years  after  C  hrist,  were  led  to  form  a  doctrine  to 
which  they  gave  the  name  of  Trinity, Does  not  this  imply  his 
rejection  of  tlie  doctrine  ?  Clarkson  says  you  '*  seldom  use  the 
term"  and  reject  it,  as  also  the  term  original  sin,"  because. 
•'•  not  found  in  the  sacred  writings."  He  quotes  also  Penning- 
ton and  Crook  (writers  of  your  Society)  as  giving  little  informa- 
tion on  the  subject.  The  writer  of  tliis  note  has  frequently 
lieard  your  preachers,  read  your  books,  and  examined  your 
Apologies,  Defences,  Portraitures,  Treatises,  Vindication^;. 
Refutations,  and  Histories,  but  does  not  i*ecoliect  a  single  allu- 
sion which  implied  your  belief  of  the  doctrine  in  question, — a 
doctrine  whicli  lies  at  the  very  root  of  Christianity.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  openly  disavowed  by  man}  in  Wilming- 
ton who  bear  your  name,  and  wear  your  livery ;  and  one  oi* 
your  Leaders  not  long  since  declai*ed  that  he  w{)uld  as  soon 
believe  in  Thirty  Persons  as  Three  Persons  in  the  Godhead  !" 
To  mc  you  appear  to  blend  the  works  of  the  different  Persons  of 
the  Godhead,  making  them  all  the  works  of  the  Spirit;  vow  also 
bury  the  Holiness  and  Justice  of  God  under  the  ever  prominent 
attribute  of  Goodness.  In  short,  you  apjiear  to  me  to  believe 
and  exhibit  little  more  of  the  character  of  the  Supreme,  than 
what  the  Light  of  Nature  teaches,  entirely  disregarding  the  ad- 
ditional light  of  the  Scriptures. 

Xow  will  you  be  so  kind  and  candid  as  to  state  the  sentiments 
of  your  Society  on  this  all  important  subject  ?  in  the  hope  vou 
will  thus  favour  me  and  the  public  generally,  I  will  not  occupy 
the  Repository  next  week,  but  leave  room  lor  your  communi- 
cation. 20 


154 


SiTenllt'Jayy  nth  Mo.  lo,  liti. 

AMICUS  TO  PAUL. 

To*'Panrs"  Note  of  last  week  Amicus"  replies  that  he 
does  not  mean  to  be  diverted  from  his  present  defensive  course. 
He  sees  no  good  reason  wiiy  *'Paul"  should  shrink  from  a  full 
discussion  of  subjects  which  were  introduced  by  himself  and 
which  he  has  told  us  are  of  high  moment  and  of  eternal  conse- 
quence." The  great  importance  which  he  attaches  to  carnal 
ordinances  ought  to  inspire  him  with  patience  and  induce  him  to 
lend  a  willing  ear  to  any  attempt  to  illustrate  tlie  subject.  If 
we  are  commanded  to  observe  them,  the  coinviand  cannot  be 
weakened  by  the  most  rigid  scrutiny.  Truth  loses  nothing  by 
investigation.  If  typical  ceremonies  are  not  binding  on  Clais- 
tians,  the  sooner  tliey  are  abandoned  tlie  better — Their  abolition 
will  save  the  administrators  of  them  much  unnecessary  trouble, 
whilst  the  people  will  be  left  without  interruption  to  pursue  the 
great  object  of  Divine  faith,  pnrity  of  heart  and  communion  of 
soul  with  the  great  author  of  our  existence. 

In  the  prosecution  of  the  present  discussion  Paul"  has  as- 
serted that  **  it  is  the  helief  of  many  of  the  greatest  and  best  men 
in  our  country,"  that  we  are  **  a  specious  kind  of  Infidels,  spuri- 
ous Christians,  a  species  of  Deists" — He  has  not  informed  us 
who  these  great  men  are,  although  he  does  not  hesitate  iv.  rank 
himself  as  one  of  them.  It  might  add  further  lustre  tu  the  char- 
acter of  our  opponent  if  he  would  mention  the  names  of  these 
great  men  ! 

In  a  Note  under  date  of  July  ^8,  1821,  he  has  told  us  that 
his  labours  in  the  present  case  are  '*  the  result  of  much  prayer:^* 
he  did  not  say  to  whom  his  prayer  was  directed  :  but  if  it  has 
been  answered,  we  have  good  I'eason  to  believe,  by  the  result, 
that  it  was  addressed,  not  to  the  Divine  Author  of  Peace,  but, 
to  the  malignant  source  of  animosity  and  discord.  From  the 
spirit  he  has  manifested  the  impai  tial  reader  can  be  at  no  loss 
to  understand  tiie  real  cliaracter  and  design  of  the  attack  he  has 
made  upon  us — It  is  not  to  elicit  truth — it  is  not  to  reform  er- 
rors— it  is  not  because  he  feels  a  deep  concern  for  our  salvation, 
that  he  comes  before  the  public. — Resolved  to  defame  us  at  all 
hazards,  and  with  this  object  constantly  before  him,  he  ever 
leaves  the  plain  path  of  sober  argument  and  rational  induction, 
forgets  the  dignity  of  his  profession  and  the  solemn  nature  of  the 
controversy  in  which  he  is  engaged,  and  uses  his  pen  as  a  wea- 
pon  (f  detraction,  such  as  the  present  age  has  not  witnessed!  j 

Amicus"  cannot  descend  to  meet  him  on  this  ground.  To 
seek  for  matter  of  accusation  against  any  religious  society  in  the 
private  conversation  of  individuals     Amicus"  will  not  stoop- ' 


155 


He  cheerfully  leaves  these  sources  of  censure  to  **Paur'  ami 
the  lowest  characters  of  society. — Weapons  taken  from  sucli  an 
armory  Amicus  disdains  to  wield — tliey  hetray  not  only  the  weak- 
ness of  the  cause  they  arc  intended  to  sup])ort,  hut  a  want  of 
dignity  in  him  wlio  uses  them,  totally  unfitting  the  higlily  re- 
sponsible  character  of  a  religious  advocate!  On  scriptural 
ground  with  the  weapons  of  sound  argument  Amicus"  stands 
prepared  to  face  his  opponent  on  any  subject  fairly  hrought  be- 
fore the  public. 

But  is  it  not  incumbent  on  "Paul"  as  a  high  prof essor  of  reli' 
gion  ?  is  it  not  due  to  the  public  ?  is  it  not  due  to  himself  as  a 
man,  now  to  come  forward  and  point  out  explicitly  tlie  grounds 
of  those  serious  charges  he  has  made  against  us  ?  to  give  the 
reasons  why  he  has  attempted  to  unchristianize  a  ^^  holc  com- 
munity ?  Instead  of  resting  on  the  ground  of  opinion  whether  of 
himself  or  other  nameless  *'  great  — Instead  of  telling  the 
world  what  he  has  heard  this  or  that  individual  say — Instead  of 
'descending  into  the  haunts  of  scandal  in  search  of  materials  to 
defame  us — would  it  not  be  more  commendable,  more  honourable 
by  quotations  from  our  approved  ivritcrs,  by  a  fair  recourse  to 
authentic  documents^  at  once  to  prorve  our  heresy  to  the  world  ? 
I  From  the  alleged  silence  of  our  W  riters  and  the  reports  of  our 
'  enemies  **  Paul"  draws  the  conclusion  that  on  the  subject  of  "  the 
Trinity"  we  are  heretics !  **  Amicus"  informs  the  reader  tliat 
this  serious  charge  of  Silence  stands  among  the  numerous  unfound- 
ed assertions  of  his  opponent — Our  writers  have  not  been  silent 
on  the  subject — let  Paul"  then  bring  their  sentiments  forward 
and  prove  them  unscriptural,  if  he  think  himself  competent  to 
the  task.  Amicus"  will  not  shrink  from  the  attempt  to  defend 
them. 

^'Amicus"  does  not  accept  "Paul's"  invitation  to  occupy 
the  columns  of  the  Repository  this  week.  It  will  better  suit 
Amicus  to  take  his  usual  course.  One  more  Essay  will,  he 
hopes,  close  the  subject  of  carnal  ordinances;  if  it  should,  he 
will  stand  ready  to  give  our  views  on  the  subject  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or,  as  defendant,  to  answer  any  objections  that  Paul 
may  have  made,  or  may  choose  to  make,  on  the  subject  of  our 
religious  sentiments." 


156 


Saturday f  Novembtr  17,  1821. 

LETTER  XIV. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

One  great  i'iir.lt  wliich  I  find  with  your  writers,  pi-eacliers, 
catechisms,  and  systems  is  indefiniteness  on  tlie  most  important 
points.  You  arc  very  precise  and  distinct  on  little  things;  suf- 
fer no  one  to  mistake  your  views  of  forms  and  ceremonies. 
Long  chapters  can  he  written,  long  discourses  delivered  in  de- 
fence and  explication  of  your  discipline,  your  modes  of  speech 
and  drcss^  your  objection  to  oaths,  wars,  slavery,  kc,  so  that  the 
most  careless  reader  or  hearer  cannot  possihly  misunderstand 
your  doctrines  on  these  subjects.  But  on  the  all-important  topics 
of  the  Character  of  God,  the  Nature  and  Offices  of  Christ,  the 
Work  of  the  Spirit,  the  Way  of  Salvation,  and,  in  general,  the 
grand  Essentials  of  Christianity,  you  hide  yourselves  in  a  cloud 
of  mysticism,  leaving  us  to  guess  at  your  doctrines,  and,  if  wo 
oppose  you,  to  cast  our  arguments  at  a  venture.  A  man  may 
read  a  thousand  pages  of  your  writings,  attend  your  meetings 
for  years,  and  while  he  is  constantly  reminded  of  the  importance 
of  plainness  in  dress  and  peculiarity  in  speech,  the  danger  of  at- 
tending otlier  places  of  worship,  the  ruinous  tendency  of  Bible 
and  Missionary  Societies,  the  uselcssness  of  all  outw  ard  forms, 
and  various  errors  in  other  denominations, — he  w  ill  hear  little  of 
the  infinite  Evil  of  Sin,  the  Holiness  and  Justice  of  God,  the 
need  of  a  vicarious  Atonement,  the  total  Depravity  of  the  natural 
heai't,  the  Im]>ortance  of  the  Scriptures,  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  the  works  of  the  different  Di- 
vine Persons,  the  Resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  universal  Judg- 
ment, and  future  Everlasting  Punishment !  These  are  topics 
seldom  or  never  touched  ;  and  w  hen  touched  are  merely  glanced 
at  as  matters  of  subordinate  importance  to  the  great  subject  of 
Internal  Light  I  These  errors,  or  these  gross  deficiencies  of  yours 
are  not  mentioned  w  itli  joy,  but  with  unfeigned  grief.  And 
however  you  may  suspect  oi*  arraign  my  motives,  the  Searcher 
of  hearts  is  my  witness  that  my  soul  weeps  over  the  souls  you 
are  ruining  by  keeping  tijem  in  igr.orance  of  the  only  true  God 
and  the  salvation  of  Christ.  It  is  my  sincere  belief  that  an 
anxious  sinner,  w  ho  had  no  means  of  reading  the  Scriptures, 
miglit  attend  your  meetings  and  read  your  books  for  years, 
without  either  experimentally  or  speculatively  learning  the  way  ' 
of  salvation. 

In  my  last  Note,  I  stated  the  reasons  for  believing  you  reject 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Your  systematic  writers  say  noth- 
ing on  the  subject :  others  only  allude  to  it  to  condemn  it,  while 


157 


it  is  a  notorious  tact  that  your  preachers  never  say  a  word  in  its 
favour,  and  private  members  of  your  Society  treat  it  witli  con- 
tempt or  ridicule.  Every  writer  of  other  denominations  whom 
I  have  read,  and  who  speaks  upon  tlie  subject,  takes  it  for 
granted,  your  Society  is  heretical  on  this  point.  If,  therefore, 
you  hive  any  respect  for  your  Christian  Brethren  of  other  de- 
nominations, you  ought  to  make  your  sentiments  known  on  a 
tx)pic  which  they  view  as  second  in  importance  to  no  doctrine 
in  the  word  of  God.  A  difference  from  them  on  this  point  will 
forever  separate  you  from  their  communion  and  exclude  you,  in 
their  estimation,  from  the  visible  churcli,  and  the  number  of  the 
w  orshippers  of  the  only  true  God.  In  view  of  these  considera- 
tions. Amicus  was  requested  to  state  his  and  your  real  senti- 
ments upon  this  subject.  This  reasonable  request  he  has  refus- 
ed to  comply  with,  and  has  thus  given  additional  reason  to 
suspect  your  orthodoxy  on  this  important  point.  And  I  here 
i-epeat  my  yet  unaltered  belief  that  the  God  whom  you  worship 
'and  the  Savmir  whom  you  preach  are  not  the  God  and  Saviour  set 
forth  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth.  And  until  you  give  some  ex- 
plicit statement  of  your  view  s  on  this  subject,  the  Christian  pub- 
lic will  be  justified  in  considering  you  as  heretical  on  the  great 
first  principle  of  revealed  religion, — that  Jehovah  is  j(FTRiuNB 
God. 

It  is  unnecessary  at  present  to  proroe  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity 
of  Persons  in  the  Godhead ;  it  will  be  time  enough  when  you* 
formally  deny  it.  At  present  I  will  adduce  a  few  considera- 
tions to  show  its  fundamental  importance  in  religion. 

1.  This  doctrine  is  of  prime  importance  because  it  relates  to 

i  the  Object  of  worship.  As  religion  consists  principally  in  loving, 
worshipping  and  serving  God,  every  system  of  religion  will 
take  its  character  from  its  particular  Deity.  Men  could  not 
with  ])ropriety  be  called  the  worshippers  of  Belial,  Moloch. 
Mammon,  Venus  or  Mars,  unless  tlieir  lives  were  conformed  to 
the  character  of  these  idols.  Neither  are  any  the  worshippers 
of  Jehovah  farther  than  their  lives  are  conformed  to  his  charac^ 
ter  and  w  ill.  He  is  the  Sun  of  doctrine,  and  the  Soul  of  the  re- 
ligious system.  Every  tiling  therefore  depends  on  the  nature 
of  Him  whom  we  worship.  If  he  be  not  just  and  holy,  it  is 
w  rong  to  worship  him  as  such  ;  if  he  do  not  exist  in  a  Trinity 

I  of  Persons,  to  worship  him  as  such  is  idolatry.    This  doctrine 

I  then  is  of  the  highest  importance  and  lies  at  the  very  foundation 

I  of  religion. 

I  2.  Upon  it  depends  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  For  if  there,  be 
but  one  Person  in  the  Godhead,  as  Christ  is  a  separate  Person 
from  the  Father,  both  cannot  be  Divine.  And  as  no  one  doubts 
that  the  Father  is  God,  it  follows  that  the  Son  must  be  inferior 


158 


to  and  a  creature  ot*  ):lie  Father.  Upon  no  otlier  supposition 
than  the  truth  of  the  Trinity,  can  we  with  propriety  hold  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  unless  we  adopt  the  Avian  scheme  and  call 
him  God  though  we  helievehim  a  created  and  dependent  being  ; 
or  the  Swedenborgian  and  old  Sabellian  scheme  tliat  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  became  incarnate,  which  is  attended  with 
many  absurdities.  The  quotation  made  by  ^*  John"  some  time 
ago  to  prove  you  hold  the  Divinity  of  Christ  amounts  to  no- 
thing, unless  you  tell  us  who  Christ  is,  and  that  you  mean  a 
person  distinct  from  God  the  Father.  To  tell  us  that  the  FatJier 
is  divine  is  not  enough.  To  deny  the  Trinity  then,  is  to  deny 
the  real  Divinity  of  Christ. 

And  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Divinity  of  the  Spirit,  Fop 
if  there  be  but  one  Person  in  the  Deity  and  the  Father  be  that 
Person,  the  Spirit  must  be  something  else  than  God.  On  the 
other  hand,  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  you  at  once 
establish  the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Spirit. 

3.  Without  the  Trinity,  we  must  suiTender  the  doctrine  of 
Atonement,  For  to  whom  did  Christ  atone  ? — certainly  to  some 
other  than  himself,  even  to  the  Father.  But  how  can  this  b^ 
unless  h^be  separate  from  the  Father.  To  deny  the  Trinity 
then,  to*rnake  the  Father  and  the  Son  the  same  jyerson  is  to  ren- 
der an  atonement  impossible,  and  thus  sap  the  foundation  of  our 
eternal  hopes.  The  man  Jesus  could  never  have  made  the  in- 
Jinite  satisfaction  which  God  required  for  our  transgressions, 
nor  paid  an  obedience  for  ns.  Being  a  creature  he  owed  obedi- 
ence for  himself.  But  suppose  him  a  distinct  Person  of  the 
Godhead,  under  no  obligation  to  obey  the  law,  and  you  honor 
the  law  by  his  condescending  obedience,  and  make  him  capable 
of  atoning  to  tlie  Fatlier  by  tlie  endurance  of  infinite  agonies  for 
the  redemption  of  a  lost  world.  Accordingly  you  are  consist- 
ent with  yourselves  in  saying  little  of  his  atoning  sacrifice. 
The  cross  of  Christ"  in  which  the  Apostle  supremely  glo- 
ried," forms  no  prominent  topic,  if  it  is  even  mentioned  in  your 
preaching  ! 

4.  You  Runul  his  Intercession,  Heb.  vii.  25.  1  John  ii.  1.  John 
xvii.  For  unless  he  be  distinct  from  the  Father,  how  can  he  in- 
tercede with  the  Father.  To  say  that  as  man  he  intercedes,  is  to 
make  him  as  man  omnipresent,  omniscient  and  omnipotent. 
For  he  who  intercedes  for  the  millions  of  his  people  must  be 
present  not  only  in  all  religious  assemblies,  and  in  every  closet, 
but  must  continually  read  the  feelings  and  desires  of  every 
heart  ;  of  coui'schemustbe  God  ;  but  as  God  he  cannot  intercede 
unless  he  be  a  distinct  Person  from  the  One  with  whom  he  in- 
tercedes. To  deny  therefore  a  Plurality  ot  Persons  in  the  God- 
head is  to  set  aside  another  important  part  of  the  work  of  Christ. 


159 


5.  You  undermine  the  Mssimi  and  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
John  xiv.  26.  **  But  the  Comforter  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all 
things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance  whatsoever  I 
have  said  unto  you."  xvi.  13.  **  Howbeit  when  He,  the  Spirit 
of  Truth  is  come,  He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth ;  for  he  shall 
not  speak  of  himself;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  hear  that  shall 
he  speak."  Here  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as  a  Person,  the  person- 
al pronouns  being  used.  It  is  not  said  the  Spirit  xvhich^  but 
w/ioiJi"  the  Father  shall  send.  Nor  is  it  said  it  shall  lead," 
but  "  he  shall  lead  you  into  all  truth."  The  Spirit  therefore  is 
a  Person,  a  Divine  agent  who  thinks,  speaks  and  acts  in  and  of 
himself,  and  a  Person  separate  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  or 
how  could  he  be  sent  from  the  Father  by  the  Son.  John  xv.  26. 
"  The  Comfoi-ter  whom  /  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth."  If  here  be  not  reference  to  three  dis- 
tinct Persons,  in  what  language  could  such  a  distinction  be  ex- 
-pressed  ?  Deny  then  the  Trinity  and  you  deny  the  distinct  ex- 
istence of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  his  work  of  conviction  and  con- 
version. 

In  short,  this  doctrine  is  interwoven  with  all  the  leading  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel.  And  no  preacher  can  properly  explain  the 
way  to  heaven,  without  a  reference  to  the  distinct  works  of 
Father,  Son  and  Spirit.  The  First  devises,  the  Second  pur- 
chases, the  Third  applies  salvation. 

'  Yet  this  is  a  doctrine  which  you  do  not  believe ;  or  if  you  do 
believe,  one  upon  which  you  never  preach  nor  write,  nor  speak 

,  unless  in  terms  of  condemnation  !  This  doctrine  so  necessary  to  a 
right  apprehension  of  the  God  we  worship,  so  necessary  to  right 
views  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  essential  to  right  conceptions  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  so  intimately  interwoven  with  every  important 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith,  you  insist  upon  no  more  than 
Seneca  or  Socrates  who  never  heard  of  it,  or  than  Socinians  and 
Mahometans  who  hold  it  in  abhorrence! 

The  God  whom  all  Antitrinitarians  worship,  is  so  essentially^ 
different  from  the  Triuive  Jehovah,  that  were  all  as  candid  as 
Dr.  Priestly,  they  would  say  with  him,  I  do  not  wonder  you 
refuse  to  hold  communion  with  us,  for  if  we  are  right,  you  are 

I  idolaters ;  and  if  you  are  right,  xve  are  not  Christians,'* 

PAUL. 


160 


Seventh-day y  nth  Mo.  24,18:1. 

LETTER  XVI. 

As  all  typical  ceremonies  appear  to  be  incou  istcnt  with  tli« 
Spiritual  nature  and  great  design  of  Christianity — As  the  Apos- 
tle asserts  tliat  Christ  "  blotted  out  the  hand  writing  of  ordi- 
nances and  took  it  out  of  the  way  nailing  it  to  his  cross.'' 
Col.  ii.  14.  it  is  a  matter  of  primary  importance  in  the  present 
discussion  to  ascertain  whether  our  Lord  came  to  blot  out  one 
set  of  carnal  ordinances,  in  order  to  institute  another  in  their 
stead — whetlier  the  great  ^Mitype  in  whom  all  the  figures  of  the 
law  were  fulfilled,  came  to  abolish  the  significant  ceremonies  of 
the  Jewish  Economy,  in  order  to  introduce  others  of  the  same  na- 
ture, but  far  less  significant  than  those  he  annulled — whether  he 
intended  to  put  an  end  to  the  solemn  feast  of  the  passover  and 
sacrifice  of  the  paschal  lamb,  (that  awful  and  most  expressive 
figure  of  our  suffering  Lord)  in  order  to  institute  the  eating  of 
bread  and  drinking  of  wine  as  an  ordinance  in  its  room.  Be- 
fore I  proceed  to  answer  the  particular  objections  of  my  oppo- 
nent, it  will  be  proper  a  little  to  examine  this  subject.  In  do- 
ing this,  I  will  first  advert  to  the  nature  and  design  of  these 
ceremonies,  and  afterwards  notice  tlie  mode  of  instituting  them. 

1st.  The  ultimate  object  of  all  the  rites  of  the  Mosaic  Law, 
was  to  point  out  the  Saviour,  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  Jews 
to  the  promised  Messiah  and  his  office  in  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind. Before  faith  came,"  says  the  Apostle  we  were  kept 
under  the  law,  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which  should  afterwards,  he 
revealed,  wherefore  the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  un- 
to Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith,  but  after  that  faith 
is  come  we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmaster."  The  whole  ar- 
gument of  tlie  Apostle  in  this  passage  is  remarkably  a  propos,— 
He  shows,  first  the  object  of  carnal  ordinances  under  the  Jewish 
law.  "  A  schoolmaster  to  bring  the  Jews  to  Christ.*' — As  a 
teacher  leads  his  pupils  to  the  knowledge  of  things  by  first  teach- 
ing him  signs ;  letters  and  words  being  the  signs  or  symbols  of 
ideas  intended  to  be  conveyed.  So  the  law^  as  a  schoolmaster 
was  intended  to  lead  the  Israelites  to  Christ  by  outward  signs, 
typical  ceremonies,  and  figurative  institutions,  all  pointing  to 
tlie  divine  substance,  the  great  Antity])e,  **the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  to  every  one  tliat  believeth,"  Rom.  x.  4.  and 
secondly,  he  points  out  a  substitute  for  them.  Under  the  law 
they  were  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which  was  afterwards  reveal- 
ed." Christ  was  preached  to  them  hy  the  rites  of  an  outward 
worship,  but  after  that  faith  came,  they  were  no  longei*  under  j 
a  schoolmaster."  On  the  introduction  of  the  Gospel,  carnal  or- 1 
dinances  were  all  abolished,  and  in  tlicir  room  faith  in  ChrkX*^ 


IGI 


was  made  the  suhstitufc^  and  faith,  inteand  living  faith  in  Christ 
is  anl  ever  will  be  a  perfect  subs  fit  nie  for  everif  tifpical  andfigura' 
tive  ceremony  that  was  ever  ivstituted.    See  Gal.  iii.  23,  24,  25. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  to  the  Galatians  the  Apostle  further  il- 
lustrates this  view  of  the  .suhject  hy  pointedly  i*e])rohatin2;  the 
use  of  elemeiLtary  and  carnal  ordinances  amongst  Christians. 
•*Even  so  we"  says  he  **  when  we  were  children  were  in  bond- 
age midcr  the  elements  of  this  world,  but  when  the  fulness  of 
time  was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son  to  redeeem  them  tliat 
were  under  tlie  law  that  we  might  recei^  e  the  adoption  of  sons,'* 
— **  Now  after  that  ye  have  known  God,  or  ratlier  are  known  of 
God,  how  turn  ye  again  to  the  wealx  and  beggarbj  elements  w  here- 
unto ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage.'*  1  am  afraid  of  yovi 
lost  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labour  in  vain."  Gal.  iv.  3, 
4,  5,  9,  11. 

2d.  We  will  now  consider  tlie  mode  of  instituting  carnal  or- 
dinances, and  endeavour  to  shew  tliat  when  it  pleased  Divine 
-Wisdom  under  former  dis])ensations  to  establish  any  outward, 
i  ceremony  as  a  men.oi'ial  of  his  mercy,  or  as  a  seal  of  his  cove- 
nant, it  was  al\N  ays  done  in  tlie  most  positive  and  unequivocal. 
ni  viner — not  by  occasional  rcinarks  or  by  co-iversation  on  other 
■ccts,  but  by  express  command,  in  the  clearest  langaagc.  Thus 
wiiLMi  circumcision  was  instituted,  **  God  said  unto  Abraham, 
thou  shalt  keep  my  covenant,  thou  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  tiieir 
generations  :  this  is  my  Covenant  wluch  ye  shall  keep  between 
me  and  you  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  every  male  among  you  shall 
1)0  circumcised,  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  between 
'-1'  and  you,"    Gen.  xvii.  9,10,  11.    When  f/ic  pas.swer  was 
ituted,  iMoses,  after  describing  the  manner  of  observing  tlii*; 
-t  and  the  design  of  celebrating  it,  says,     And  thi^day  shall 
nito  you  for  a  memoriaU  and  you  shall  keep  it  a  feast  to  the 
Lord  througiiout  your  generations,  you  shall  keep  a  feast  by  an 
irdinance  forever,**    Exod.  xii.  14.    In  these  cases  the  com- 
Ucind  was  plain — nothing  ambiguous — nothing  uncertain,  no 
■ )  »m  left  by  the  divmo  Institutor  for  any  misunderstanding  on 
iiose  subjects  :  and,  as  might  be  expected,  no  oise  ever  after- 
vards  doubted  of  his  intention  to  institute  them  standing  or- 
linances  in  the  Jewish  Church.    It  is  not  supposable  that  a 
)orfect  Lawgiver  would  give  an  imperfect  law — would  convey 
lis  will  in  dubious  or  equi  ocal  expressions.    Lotus  now  re - 
ort  to  the  language  of  our  Saviour  when  as  my  opponent  says 
le  instituted  a  ceremony  of  such  extraordinary  importance  as 
ho  Eucharist,  let  us  well  consider  the  circumstances  in  which 
'  was  placed,  let  us  remember  the  occasion  which  called  them 
ether  at  t'le  time,  and  I  think  the  unprejudiced  rea('cr  must 
icknow ledge  tiiat  our  divine  Lord  did  not  intend  by  the  express- 
21 


162 


ions  which  then  fell  from  his  lips,  to  institute  a  new  oi'dinanct 
of  perpetual  ohligation  on  his  Church.  The  Evangelist  expj  ess- 
ly  informs  us  that  they  met  to  celebrate  the  Jewish  Passover,  In 
my  former  Essays  I  have  clearly  shewn  that  no  ceremony  was 
tlien  performed,  that  did  not  strictly  appertain  to  that  festival. 
AVliilst  as  Master  or  chief  man  of  that  feast  ^'and  as  they  were 
eating,  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it  and  brake  it  and  gave  it 
to  the  disciples" — **and  he  took  the  cup  and  gave  it  to  them, 
saying,  drink  ye  all  of  it."  In  doing  all  this  he  did  no  more 
than  was  always  done  by  every  Jew  who  presided  at  this  ceremo- 
ny— so  far  he  celebrated  no  new  instiution,  he  only  performed  the 
custom^-ry  rites  of  the  paschal  feast — But  in  conformity  to  his 
usual  practice,  he  on  this  occasion  endeavoured  to  turn  the  at- 
tention of  his  auditory  to  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  Bread 
and  Wine  he  had  offered  them — Of  the  Bread  he  said  **this  is 
my  bodij^^^  this  represents  my  flesh  which  is  given  for  the  life 
of  the  world."  John  vi.  51.  Of  the  cup  he  says  **This  is  my 
blood  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  shed  for  many." — In  both 
tliese  sentences  he  plainly  alludes  to  tlmt^flesh  and  blood,  that  di- 
vine and  spiritual  food  of  the  immortal  soul,  of  which  he  had  be- 
fore said  Except  ye  eat  the  jlesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  diink 
his  blood  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  John  vi.  53.  This  do  in  re- 
membrance of  me." — Remember  whilst  you  are  eating  this  bread 
and  drinking  this  wine  the  eternal  consequences,  the  infinite  im- 
portance of  communion  w  ith  God,  of  a  participation  in  my  spiritu- 
al Jlesh  and  blood,  Whoso  eateth  my  flesli  and  diinketh  my 
blood  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day." 
John  vi.  54. 

From  what  has  been  said,  my  reader  will  be  led  to  contrast 
the  expressions  used  on  the  institution  of  circumcision  and  the 
paschal  feast,  with  those  used  by  our  Lord  at  the  Passover  Sup- 
per. In  the  former  the  command  was  to  Abraham  and  to  his 
seed  after  him — to  the  Jews  for  memorial  to  be  kept  through- 
out  their  generations  by  an  ordinance  forever,''  In  the  latter-  we 
lind  no  intimation  that  the  successors  of  tlie  Apostles  were  to  ob- 
serve the  breaking  of  bread  and  drinking  of  w  ine,  the  usual  cer- 
emonies of  tlie  Passover  festival,  in  remembrance  of  Christ,  The 
command  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me,"  w  as  only  directed 
to  the  Apostles — not  to  any  after  them.  We  have  not  the  least 
proof  from  the  text  that  any  others  tlian  those  present  wei'e  com- 
manded to  do  this,''  The  whole  of  the  context  shows  that  our 
Lord  and  his  Apostles  were  celebrating  the  Jewish  Passover, 
and  tliat  he  intended  nothing  furtlier  than  that  they  should  ad- 
vert to  the  objects  of  all  typical  institutions,  the  end  f  all  carnal 
ordinances,  tlie  divine  and  spiritual  Lamb  which  taketh  away 
the  sins  of  the  world. 


163 


I  will  now  advert  to  the  arguments  of  my  o])ponent  on  the 
subject  in  disrussion.  He  says  **  on  tliis  broad  ground  tliat  the 
Saviour  instituted — the  Apostles  sanctioned — and  the  early 
Christians  observed  this  ordinance  I  am  willing  to  rely.''  How 
weak  a  reliaiice  he  has  in  this  case  my  readers  will  readily  pei*- 
ceive. 

That  our  Saviour  instituted  the  use  of  bread  and  wine  as  an 
ordinance,  he  had  endeavoured  to  prove  merely  by  citing  Mat- 
thew, Mark  and  Luke  on  tliis  subject — and  by  making  a  few^ 
gratuitous  assertions  without  the  shadow  of  an  argument  to  show 
that  our  Lord  meant  to  institute  a  new  ordinance  when  he  cele- 
brated the  feast  of  the  Passover.  If  any  of  his  readers  can  be 
misled  by  such  kind  of  argument,  they  are  such  readers  as  Ami- 
cus has  never  expected  to  convince,  he  has  appealed  to  the  un- 
derstanding  of  his  readers,  to  those  who  are  capable  of  weighing 
the  force  of  an  argument,  and  not  to  those  who  are  willing  to  be 
led  by  tlie  ipse  dixit  evidence  of  any  man  however  high  his  pre- 
|-  tentions  in  matters  of  faith. 

That  the  Apostles  ever  sanctioned  the  use  of  Bread  and  Wine 
as  a  religious  ceremony  he  has  never  brought  any  evidence  to 
prove.  The  history  of  the  xVpostles  as  recorded  by  Luke,  give** 
us  no  idea  that  the  use  of  wine  **the  memorial  of  the  blood  of 
Christ" — that  important  part  of  this  carnal  ordinance  was  ever 
observed  by  them — consequently  they  never  celebrated  the  Eti- 
charist. 

That  the  early  christians  observed  this  ordinance,  he  has 
brought  no  proof  exceptthe  practice  of  the  Corinthian  Church — 
the  most  immoral,  contentious,  carnal  Church  in  Christendom^ 
a  Church  whose  practice  in  this  case  was  severely  reprobated 
j  by  the  Apostle.  A  Church  whose  example  may  suit  my  oppo- 
I  nent,  but  cannot  serve  as  a  pattern  to  any  Christian  who  is  de- 
sirous of  following  the  precept  and  example  of  our  Lord  and  his 
Apostles. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  utility  of  these  ordinances — a  branch 
of  the  subject  on  which  my  opponent  dwells  with  much  compla- 
cency.   First  he  says  **  I  appeal  to  every  candid  observer,  if 
these  ordinances  do  not  honour  Christ  and  his  religion  ?"  To 
this  it  may  be  answered  that  if  murder  and  bloodshed  do  honoui* 
!  to  Christ  and  the  religion  of  my  opponent,  the  Eucharist  must 
i  rank  very  high  as  a  means  of  doing  this  honour.    Those  of 
Paul's"  readers  who  have  made  themselves  acquainted  witli 

I Ecclesiastical  history,  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  horrible  cruel- 
ties to  which  this  Rite  has  given  birth!  How  many  thousands 
of  innocent  men  and  women  have  been  butchered  or  burnt  at  a. 
stake  on  its  account.  But  says  m\  opponent  **  it  is  profitable 
believers," — **  it  teaches  saints  their  unity  in  faith,  love,  c'^c." 


1G4 


Wliy  yes,  if  contenHon  "  is  profitable  to  believrrs,"  it  has  been 
a  fruitful  source  of  profit!  If  animosity  and  strife  produce 

unity  in  faith  and  love"  it  well  deserves  the  laboured  eulogium 
of  my  opponent — It  broke  the  peace  between  Calvin  and  Lntlier 
— it  has  divided  Christians  under  every  name — it  has  for  many 
centuries  been  a  perj)etual  cause  of  wrangling  and  discord. 
There  has  liardly  been  any  other  source  of  as  much  vexation, 
division  and  disgrace  to  the  ])rofessors  of  Christianitv,  as  al- 
most every  page  of  Ciiurch  history  abundantly  demonstrates. 
It  may  safely  be  asserted  that  those  societies  of  Christians  have 
leen  most  united  who  liave  had  the  least  to  do  with  it. 

But  says  my  opponent  **  it  makes  religion  visible."  Tliis  is 
another  of  "Paul's"  curious  notions.  Religion  consists  in  iin 
inward  piety  of  the  heai  t,  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God,  it  is  ren- 
dered visible,  not  by  the  use  of  the  '*  weak  and  beggarly  ele- 
ments," but  by  **  visiting  the  fatherless  and  the  widow  in  tiieir 
affliction,  and  by  keeping  ones  self  unspotted  from  the  world." 
I  ask  my  opponent  to  put  his  fingei'  on  any  passage  in  the  sacred 
volume,  where  eating  of  bread  and  drinking  of  wine  is  identified 
with  religion  or  spoken  of  as  an  evidence  of  its  existence,  ^'one 
can  deny  that  the  unregenerate  and  wicked  may  and  do  use  this 
ceremony — w  hat  kind  of  religion  do  they  **  make  visible"  but 
the  dark  and  carnal  religion  of  the  hypocrite  ? — The  very  best 
and  only  infallible  evidence  of  religion  in  any  of  its  professors 
is  a  pure  and  holy  life. 

Under  a  conviction  that  carnal  ordinances  were  never  com- 
manded by  Christ,  that  they  are  inconsistent  with  the  Gospel 
dispensation,  and  that  their  consequences  are  pei*nicious,  the 
Society  of  Friends  have  never  used  them.  On  this  account  they 
have  been  severely  blamed  by  their  fellow  professors  of  the 
christian  name,  by  those  very  men  ^^  ho  have  neglected  to  observe 
outward  ceremonies,  ordained  with  more  formality,  enjoined 
with  greater  solemnity  than  any  of  those  observed  by  our  oppo- 
nents. Paul"  in  his  first  Letter  on  the  subject  now^  under  dis- 
cussion, tells  us  that  **a  request  from  a  dying  Redeemer  to  all 
who  love  him,  will  equal  a  command."  1  w  ill  now  attempt  to 
shew  that  he  has  dared  not  merely  to  deny  *'the  request  sl 
dying  Redeemer,"  but  that  even  a  command  has  failed  to  i)ro- 
duce  any  effect  on  him.  It  a])pears  by  the  sacred  text  that  our 
Lord  after  he  had  celebrated  tlic  Passover  with  his  disciples 
**rose  from  su])per,  laid  aside  bis  garments,  took  a  tow  el,  gird- 
ed himself,  poured  water  into  a  basin  and  began  1o  wash  his  dis- 
ciples^ feet — Peter  astonished  at  his  master's  condescension  in 
performing  so  mean  an  office,  said  **  thou  shalt  never  wash  my 
feet."  Jesus  answered  If  I  wash  thee  not ^  thou  hast  no  part 
with  me."    Peter  saith  to  him  **  Lord  not  my  feet  only  but  also 


/ 

163 

my  hands  and  my  bead."  *^  So  after  lie  had  rvashed  iheir  feet 
and  had  taken  his  gai  inents  and  was  set  do\\  n  again,  he  said 
unto  them.  Know  ye  what  I  liave  done  unto  you  ?  Ye  call  me 
jnaster  am!  liOrd,  and  ye  say  well,  for  so  I  am — if  I  theih  your 
Ijord  ami  master  have  washed  your  feet,  ye  alsoou^ht  to  wash  one 
amthersfect,  for  1  have  given  you  an  example  that  you  should  do 
<is  I  have  done  unto  you — Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  ser- 
vant is  not  gi-eater  than  his  Lord,  neither  he  that  is  sent  greater 
than  he  tlittt  sent  him.  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye 
if  ye  do  them,'**    John  xiii.  4,  5,  kc. 

Now  I  should  he  glad  to  know  upon  what  grounds  my  op- 
ponent ha'^  neglected  not  merely  a  Redeemer's  dying  request,  hut 
a  dying  Redeemer's  positive  command,  why  he  does  not  celehrate 
the  Sacrament  of  washing  one  anothers  feet  ? — ^this  pi'actice  of 
our  Saviour  is  "  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace." — if  carnal  ordinances  '^make  religion  visible," 
why  has  he  refused  to  make  religion  visible  by  refusing  to  prac- 
-tice  this  ordiiiance  ?  Can  lie  give  any  better  reason  for  liis  con- 
tumacy in  this  case,  than  that  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine 
are  rather  moi-e  agi*eeable  than  washing  his  disciples  feet.  The 
command  of  our  Loi-d  as  the  Evangelist  has  recorded  it,  is  moi-e 
positive  in  this  instance  than  the  command  to  perpetuate  the  use 
of  bi*ead  and  wine — it  is  attended  with  more  aw  ful  sanctions — 
**if  I  waslj  thee  not  thou  hast  no  part  with  me" — I  have  given 
you  an  e.xamjde  that  you  should  do  as  I  have  done  unto  you,**  If 
**  Paul"  cannot  give  a  good  substantial  reason  for  refusing  to 
celebrate  this  carnal  ordinance,  I  hope  he  v,  ii(  endeavour  to  ex- 
ercise a  little  charity  for  his  neighbour  who  believes  it  wrong  to 
lobservc  any  typical  ceremony  w  hatever,  and  especially  tfmse 
wiiich  are  not  so  clearly  enjoined  as  those  are,  which  my  oppo- 
net  wholly  neglects  himself  !!! 

I  will  now  grant  a  request  of  "  Paul"  made  in  a  former  ad- 
dress to  us  on  the  subject  of  Baptism.  He  begs  me  to  shew  that 
the  Apostles  nevei*  baptised  their  converts  **  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holv  Ghost  ;"  and  says,  tlie  mere  omission 
to  record  the  form  in  full,  no  more  proves  that  they  did  not  fol- 
low their  Lord's  command  than  the  omission  to  mention  circum- 
r.ision  for  1400  years,  proves  that  the  rite  was  not  practiced 
millions  of  times."  This  sentence  gives  us  a  fair  sam]>le  of  the 
unfair  method  generally  pursued  by  my  opponent  in  the  prose^ 
cution  of  his  scheme.  He  fii'st  takes  it  for  granted  that  our 
Lord  commanded  Water  baptism — and  secondly  that  Luke 
fmitted  to  record  the  form  of  baptism  in  full,  'But  he  has 
never  yet  shewn  that  our  Lord  commanded  water  baptism — nor 
juever  can  shew  it—And  that  Luke  was  not  the  very  defec- 
tive historian  that  "  Paul"  describes  him  to  he,  will  he  seen  by 


166 


consiiltijig  the  history  of  the  Apostles — And  first,  Acts,  viii.  15. 
where  the  Evangelist  says  speaking  of  the  Samaritans  as  yet 
the  Holy  Ghost  had  fallen  on  none  of  them  only,  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus'^ — and  secondly,  Acts  x.  48. 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  and  others  by  Peter,  he 
says,  **  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptzied  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord and  thirdly.  Acts  xix.  5.  giving  an  account  of  the  dis- 
ciples whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  he  says  after  Paul  had 
preached  to  them  "  they  were  baptized  i?i  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,*'  Now  there  is  no  other  case  of  W  ater  Baptism  mention- 
ed after  our  Lord's  resurrection,  in  which  the  sub  jects  of  it  were 
baptized  in  any  other  name  than  the  name  of  Jesus — which  I 
consider  a  sufficiently  clear  proof  that  the  Apostles  never  used 
the  form  of  words  mentioned  in  Matthew  xxviii.  19.  It  is  the 
best  evidence  that  any  negative  proposition  can  possibly  have. 
The  only  opposing  argument  adduced  by  my  opponent  is  found- 
ed in  a  surmise  that  the  Evangelist  omitted  to  tell  the  tvhok 
truths  and  that  there  may  have  been  cases  that  were  never  re- 
corded at  all  !!! 

Is  it  possible  that  any  of  our  readers  capable  of  nnderstand- 
ing  the  force  of  an  argument  can  rely  on  such  weak  surmises 
for  the  support  of  any  ordinance  in  the  church  ? 

AMICUS. 

Saturday,  Dec.  i.  i3ii. 

LETTER  XV. 

ox  BAPTISM  AND  THE  LORD's  SUPPER. 

It  will  be  recollected,  that  on  the  subject  of  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Amicus  has  written  twelve  Letters  to  my  eight ; 
and  on  the  Lord's  Supner  alone,  six  Letters  to  my  three. 
No  one  can  deny  therefore  that  he  has  had  a  fair  and  full  oppor- 
tunity of  defending  your  doctrines  ;  a^iJ  it  may  be  fairly  pre- 
sumed, as  he  has  spared  neither  time  nor  pai)er,  that  lie  is  now 
satisfied  to  ♦*close  the  sub  ject  of  carnal  ordinances,"  and  **give 
your  views."  of  the  Scriptures  or  the  Holy  Trinittj,  As  I  am  two 
subjects  in  advance  of  him,  and  as  I  have  said  nothing  on  the 
subject  of  the  sealing  ordinances  for  four  week  past,  the  public 
M  ill  pardon  a  short  reply  to  the  latest  objections  of  your  Friend. 

The  ungenerous  personal  reflections  contained  in  his  late  Letter, 
and  his  so  fi'cquent  condemnation  of  my  motives,  do  him  little 
honor,  and  as  tiiey  liave  no  weight  in  the  decision  of  tlie  question* 
they  will  not  ])rovoke  an  answer.  Let  the  public  read  and  judge. 

Let  me  first  answer  his  Objections,  and  then  advance  some 
further  Arguments. 


167 


Obj.  1.  The  Apostles  practised  circumcision,  legal  vows 
iind  Jewish  sacrifices,  and  if  in  these  they  were  mistaken,  why 
not  in  water  Baptism  A.  '*To  mistake,"  according  to  Walk- 
3r's  Dictionary,  is  "  to  err,  not  to  judge  right It  relates  to 
the  mind  and  not  to  the  conduct.  Now  in  this  sense  I  deny  that 
he  Apostles  ever  were  mistaken  on  the  subject  of  either  doc- 
trines or  ordinances.  To  admit  such  a  mistake  is  so  far  to  de- 
ly  their  infallible  inspiration.  If  they  sometimes  winked  at 
fewish  ceremonies  they  were  never  mistaken  as  to  their  impro- 
Driety,  and  never  Q\i\\er  commanded  or  recommended  these  cere- 
nonies.  Admitting,  therefore,  that  the  Apostles  had  practised 
»ome  Mosaic  rites,  it  could  not  follow  they  were  mistaken  in 
heir  views.  But  such  a  practice  though  Amicus  quotes  me  as 
.idmitting  it,  I  have  all  along  denied.  Any  one  who  has  read 
Letter  IX.  has  perceived  that  almost  the  sole  object  of  my  es- 
ay  was  to  prove  the  assertions  of  Amicus  on  this  subject  incor- 
rect, and  to  show  that  the  Apostles  never  commanded,  recommend- 
•d,  nor  practised  any  of  the  rites  of  the  Jewisli  law.  That  they 
lever  commanded  nor  recommended  them,  Amicus  will  I  think 
illow  :  that  they  never  practised  them,  will  be  evident  if  we 
:onsider  the  common  and  proper  meaning  of  the  word.  To 
)ractise,''  according  to  Walker,  and  according  to  common 
isage,  is  *'to  do  habitually  and  practice,'^  is  **  the  habit 
loing  any  thing,"  It  would  be  wrong  to  say  a  man  practised 
^'hysic  or  Law,  who  never  administered  medicine  but  once,  or 
)lead  but  one  cause  in  his  life,  and  whose  habitual  profession 
vvas  of  a  very  different  kind.  It  would  be  out  of  all  propriety 
o  say  Abraham  ])?'ac^?se(Z  lying,  Noah  drunkenness,  Peter,  deny  ng 
\iis  Master,  when  they  were  guilty  of  these  but  once  in  their 
!  ives,  and  the  habitual  tenor  of  their  conduct  was  of  an  opposite 
character.  It  is  equally  unjust  to  accuse  the  Apostle  Paul  of 
jractising  circumcision,  who  never  performed  that  rite  but  once 
n  his  Christian  life,  and  that  under  such  peculiar  circumstances 
is  to  give  the  rite  no  sanction,  while  he  habitually  preached  and 
)ractised  the  contrary.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  his  once 
\fering  sacrifices  at  Jerusalem,  at  the  request  of  James,  while 
,ie  habitually  condemned  and  opposed  such  offerings.  But  in  re- 
gard to  Baptism,  he  literally  pmctiserf  it,  that  is,  he  did  it  habit ' 
'uilly,  from  the  commencement  of  his  ministry  to  the  close  of  his 
life.  And  as  he  did,  so  did  all  the  Apostles,  not  onlyin  Judea, 
Jut  in  all  nations  whither  they  went.  Neither  he  nor  they 
rver  condemned  the  practice,  but  left  all  nations  in  the  constant 
iise  ot  it.  Let  Amicus  show  the  same  of  circmncision,  sacri- 
liccs,  6cc.  and  every  believer  in  Apostolic  inspiration  will  acknow- 
ledge the  propriety  of  their  conduct.  Besides,  hey  expressly 
jand  repeatedly  recommended  and  commanded  Baptism,  Acts  ii. 


168 


37.  X.  48.  Let  Amicus  show  tlie  same  of  any  Jewish  rite,  and 
I  for  one  will  either  acknowledge  its  propriety  and  divine  authori- 
ty, or  join  with  vou  in  denying  their  complete  inspiration.  The 
Apostli?  does  propose  himself  as  an  example  for  his  converts  to 
follow.  1  Cor.  xi.  1.  *'  Be  ye  followers  of  me,  even  as  1  also 
am  of  ChrisW^  or  hecause  1  follow  Christ.  Phil.  iii.  17.  Be 
ye  followers  together  of  me,  and  mark  those  which  so  walk  as 
ye  have  us  for  an  example,^^  iv.  9.  **  Those  things  which  ye 
have  hoth  learned  and  received  and  heard  and  smi  in  me,  do; 
and  the  God  of  peace  shall  be  with  you."  II.  Thess.  ii.  15. 
"  Hold  fast  the  traditions  (or  things  delivered")  which  ye  have 
been  taugiit  whether  by  word  or  our  Epistle."  Surely  tlie 
Apostle  sets  himself  upas  an  exam])Ie,  and  says  **tiieGodof 
peace  shall  be  with"  those  who  follow  him.  From  their  wri- 
tings, therefore,  (which  you  have  acknowledged  to  be  inspired) 
we  prove  tlieir  practice,  that  is,  their  habitual  conduct  to  be  a  rule 
for  our  direction.  Now,  neither  their  writings  nor  their  prac- 
tice sanction  any  Jewish  rite,  but  both  sanction  Heater  Baptism, 

Obj.  2d.  "The  Apostles  nev  r  l»aptize«i  in  the  name  of  Fath- 
er, Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  or  Luke  has  omitted  to  tell  the'  rvhole 
truthJ*  A.  if  not  mentioning  every  circumstance  connected 
with  an  event  is  not  telling  the  whole  truth,"  all  the  sacred 
Avriters  are  chargeable  with  it.  The  Evangelists  tell  us  that 
there  are  many  other  thiiigs  which  Jesus  did,  the  which  if  they 
should  be  written,  the  world  would  not  contain  the  books." 
John  xxi.  25.  In  II.  Cor.  xi.  24,  the  Apostle  tells  us  Five 
times  received  I  forty  stripes  save  one,  thrice  was  I  beaten  with 
rods,  thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night  and  a  day  have  I  been 
in  the  deep,  &c."  Now  will  Amicus  charge  Luke  with  **  not 
telling  the  whole  truth"  because  he  omitted  the  greater  part  of 
these  tilings  !  A  complete  record  of  Apostolic  acts  would  nil  iifiy 
folio  volumes.  Amicus  can  see  no  difference  between  omitting 
to  observe  and  omitting  to  record  a  thing !  This  however  is  not 
wonderful  since  he  cannot  see  the  diffei'ence  between  a  solitary 
and  unguarded  act,  and  an  habitual  practice  ; — between  winking 
at  a  faiilt  and  inculcating  error ; — between  tolerating  circumci 
sion  and  commanding  Baptism  !  ! 

Obj.  3d.  **  The  Apostle  received  of  Christ  and  delivered  t*) 
the  Corinthians  a  mere  narration  of  matters  of  fact,  and  isot  a 
command  &c."  The  four  Gospels,  with  many  Books  of  the 
Old  rcstament  are  mere  **  nari-ation  of  matters  of  fac  t,-"  the 
Parables  of  ovir  Saviour  are  many  of  them  mere  narration  of 
facts  5  but  do  these  therefore  convey  no  lesson,  make  no  disco- 
very of  the  will  ol  God.  Had  the  Apostle  no  ohject  in  tiiis  narra- 
tion ?  Yes,  1.  He  manifestly  attributes  the  origin  of  tiie  Lord's 
Supper  to  the     narrative"  which  he  formerly'gave  tliem — else 


169 


why  does  he  licre  mention  tltat  narrative?  This  was  one  of  the 
ordinances  which  he  liad  formerly  delivered  (v.  2d.  verse)  and 
which  he  praises  them,  in  generaU  for  having  kept,  hut  hlames 
them  for  abusing  it  by  the  previous  suppers  of  their  ow  n.  2. 
He  assui^s  them  that  narrative  was  true,  for  he  received  it  of 
The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself.  3.  He  repeats  the  narrative  it- 
self— w  hich  contains  the  institution  of  the  feast,  and  a  twice  re- 
peated command  to  observe  it  in  memory  of  Christ,  and  a  recom- 
mendation to  observe  it  often.  4.  He  now  proceeds  to  am- 
ment  on  the  narrative,"  and  tells  them  tlie  orignal  design  and 
object  of  the  feast  to  "show  forth  the  Lord's  death,  till  he  come" 
again.  5.  He  warns  them  against  eating  and  drinking  unworth- 
ily, lest  they  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  tlie  Lord.  6. 
He  exhorts  them  to  examine  themselves  whether  they  **  discerned 
the  Lord's  body,"  or  made  a  proper  discrimination  between  this 
and  other  meals ;  and  then  gives  an  express  permission  to  **  eat 
of  tliat  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup."  7.  He  traces  some  of  the 
sickness  and  death  among  them  to  their  profanation  of  this  ordi- 
nance. Lastly  ;  lie  promises  farther  directions  w  hen  he  visits 
them.  In  what  stronger  language  could  he  have  sanctioned  the 
ordinance ;  or  by  what  means  confirmed  and  rivetted  that  church 
in  tlie  use  of  it  ? 

Obj.  4th.  Jewish  and  carnal  ordinances  are  abolished."" 
I  True ;  but  these  are  neither  Jewish  nor  carnal^  but  evangelical  or- 
dinances. Are  they  not  addi^ssed  to  the  senses?"  Yes;  and 
so  is  Preaching,  Conversation  and  all  the  other  means  of  grace. 
You,  I  believe,  reject  all  means  of  grace  except  the  Spirit  and 
silent  waiting.  But  however  the  Spirit  may  sometimes  work 
without  external  means ;  ordinarily  he  never  enlightens  or  con- 
verts but  by  some  instrumental  outward  means,  such  as  Preach- 
ing, Reading,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Take  slwry 
these  and  the  other  media  through  w  hicli  the  Lord  addresses  the 
outward  senses,  and  for  one  I  should  have  no  hope  of  salvati;»ri 
for  the  children  of  men.  Upon  the  same  principle  on  w  hich  I 
would  advocate  Preaching,  or  C(jnversation,  I  would  justify 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  fVords  and  letters  are  as  much 
signs  of  spiritual  things  as  these  ordinances  ;  and  to  say  that  tlio 
Lord  no  longer  teaches  by  signs,  is  to  say  that  he  no  longer 
teachetli  by  human  language,  for  this  is  necessarily  by  signs. 

We  are  no  longer  under  a  Schoolmastir."  True,  we  are  no 
longer  under  the  rigid  discipline,  the  bondage,  slavertj  and  igno- 
rance of  the  ceremonial  law  ;  but  we  are  still  taught  by  outward 
signs,  such  as  letters,  words,  ordinances  and  providences. 

Obj.  5th.  **  Christ  did  not  command  tiiese  ordinances  in  the 
mine  words  as  Circumcision  and  the  Passover,  i.  e.  it  is  not  said 

'  shall  keep  the  feastiw  yo2tr  generations,^^  Neither  did  he  thus 
22 


roiiiniiiud  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  w6ck  as  the 
Chi'istiaii  Sabbath, — iioi*  Public  Worsliip,  nor  Family  Prayer, 
nor  Reading  the  Scriptures,  nor  any  other  duty  that  I  can  find  in 
the  whole  New  Testament.  Yet  you  will  find  some  difficulty  in 
persuading  Christians  that  tlie  above  and  many  other  duties  are 
not  really  commanded.  In  fact  tliis  objection  would  set  aside 
the  Moral  Law,  which  simply  says,  Remember  the  Sabbath 
day  to  keep  it  holy,*' — **Honour  thy  father  and  thy  mother,"  and. 
docs  not  say  **  keep  these  precepts  through  future  generations." 
It  is  sufficient  for  us  that  God  commands  a  thing  in  any  way  he 
pleases.  To  dictate  to  Infinite  >yisdom  is  presumption  in  the 
extreme. 

Obj.  6.  The  Lord  commanded  his  disciples  to  wash  each 
others  feet,  as  well  as  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper."  A.  1.  The 
Primitive  disciples  never  understood  him  literally,  nor  as  insti- 
ttiting  a  sacramental  ordinance.  But  they  did  understand  him  as 
instituting  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  2.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear tiiat  the  x\postles  ever  practised  it  literally,  or  inculcated  it 
on  the  cliurches  as  a  religious  rite.  They  appear  to  have  under- 
stood him  as  giving  them,  under  a  parabolic  action  a  lesson  of 
humility,  condescension  and  mutual  kindness. — But  they  did  ob- 
serve and  inculcate  the  Lord's  Supper.  3.  It  does  not  appear 
designed  for  universal  practice.  It  is  convenient  and  proper  on- 
ly in  warm  climates,  where  the  dress  of  the  feet  is  open  and  easi- 
ly removed,  where  such  ablutions  are  necessary  for  cleanliness 
and  comfort.  But  in  this  climate,  and  in  more  northern  regions, 
wiiere  there  are  so  many  bandages  about  the  feet,  such  an  office 
from  a  Chnstian  brother  would  be  ratlier  a  vexation  than  a  kind- 
ness I — But  the  Lord's  Supper  is  suited  to  all  climates  and  condi^ 
tioiis.  4.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ev- 
er **  received"  this  as  a  part  of  his  commission,  or  delivered" 
it  as  an  obligatory  ceremony. — But  he  did  thus  receive  and  deliv- 
er the  Lord's  Supper. 

Obj.  7.  It  lias  been  the  occasion  of  murder  and  bloodshed.'^ 
So  has  Christianity.  Only  substitute  the  word  **  Christianity" 
or  **  Gospel"  in  the  whole  of  that  pathetic  paragraph,  wherever 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  referred  to,  and  the  argument  will  be  of  the 
same  strength,  and  furnish  an  admirable  objection  (though  an  old 
one)  for  an  infidel  against  the  religion  of  the  Bible! 

Having  thus  answered  the  ingenious  objections  of  your  advo- 
cate, I  w  ill  now  adduce  a  few  new  arguments  which  confirm  mc 
in  the  propriety  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Su  p])er. 

And  1.  These  with  the  Scriptures  are  the  o?i^i/  witnesses  for 
Christ  on  the  earth.  1  John  v.  8.  10.  *«Tliis  is  the  record, 
that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.'" 
To  this  interesting  record  we  are  told  **  There  arc  Three  that 
bear  witness  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  and  tlie  Holj 


in 


Ghost, — and  there  are  three  that  hear  witness  in  earth,  tlie  Spi- 
rit, the  Watkr  and  the  Blood."  The  Spirit"  here  is  not 
the  Holy  Ghost  himselt*,  for  he  is  one  of  the  Heavenlif  Witnesses, 
but  the  ScRiPTURi.s,  called  **the  Spirit"  hecause  they  contain 
what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches."  The  Water"  is 
Baptism,  which  so  long  and  so  often  as  it  shall  be  administered 
will  bear  unequivocal  testimony  to  tlie  '^Record"  above  mention- 
ed. The  **  Blood*'  is  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  called  hecause  it  is 
"  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ"  the  New  Testament  in 
his  blood,'*  and  sets  forth  that  Atonement  which  was  by  blood. 
These  are  the  only  witnesses  Christ  has  on  earth.  Take  away 
these  and  you  leave  us  in  as  complete  darkness  on  the  subject  of 
salvation,  as  though  Christ  had  never  died,  and  Salvation  had 
never  been  brought.  Now  it  is  one  grand  objection  to  you** 
whole  scheme  that  you  labour  to  set  aside  all  these  witnesses  at 
once  I  You  degrade  the  Scriptures  by  denying  them  the  title  of 
the  "  Gospel,"  Revelation,"  word  of  God,"  ^c.  and  trans- 
ferring these  titles  to  an  ignis  fatuns  within.  You  set  aside 
Baptism  so  far  as  it  is  a  visible  witness  for  Christ,  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  so  far  as  it  shows  forth'"  the  Lord's  death.  You  have 
perhaps  read  an  allegorical  work  in  which  this  world  is  describ- 
ed as  a  City  with  different  streets  called,  *•  Presbyterian  Row" 
**  Episcopalian  Row"  Baptist  Row"  Sec.  and  one  *^  Quaker 
Row,"  where  the  houses /tad  no  windows  because  the  inhabitants 
preferred  the  light  of  a  cfutdle  to  the  light  of  the  Sun/  Now  for 
my  part  I  am  unwilling  to  relinquisli  the  light  of  God's  word 
I    and  ordinances  for  any  internal  light. 

2.  The  Apostles  address  all  their  conyei-ts  as  Baptized  and  as 
Communicants,  and  deduce  truths  and  duties  from  this  circum- 
stance. Thus  addressing  the  Romans,  (vi.  2.)  he  says,  '*  know 
ye  not  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death,  ^:c."  He  spake  to  the  Colossians  in  a  sim- 
ilar strain  in  Col.  ii.  12.  To  the  Galatians  he  writes  "As 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on 
Christ."  iii.  27.  See  also  Tit.  iii.  5.  and  Heb.  x.  22.  Ad- 
dressing the  Corinthians,  he  says,  **  we  are  all  baptizedinto  one 
body,  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  Again, 

Tlie  cup  of  blessing  whicii  we  bless  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  blood  of  Christ;  the  bread  which  we  break  is  it  not  the  com- 
mnion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  1  Cor.  x.  16,  21 :  xv.  29.  Any 
one  who  will  I'cad  the  context  of  these  passages  will  perceive 
that  he  deduces  duties  and  doctrines  from  these  ordinances. 

3.  The  Apostle  stigmatizes  Jewish  rites,  and  Iwnours  these 
Christian  ordinances  with  noble  names.  Thus,  circumcision  he- 
calls  concision,"  Pliil.  iii.  2  ;  the  kecj)ing  of  {h\ys,  months, 
years  and  other  Jewish  institutes  he  calls    beggarly  elements/* 


172 


Oal.  iv.  9;  other  things  he  calls  **will  worship,'-  Col.  ii.  16,  23. 
How  differently  he  speaks  of  Baptism  tlie  texts  quoted  under 
the  last  head  sufficiently  show.  What  you  call  **  the  ceremony 
of  eating  bread  and  wine"  the  Apostle  calls  the  "  Table  of  the 
Lordf^^  the  **cup  of  theLord,'^  **  the  communion  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,"  1  Cor.  x.  16,  21.  In  the  next  chapter  he 
styles  it  the  "  Lord's  Supper"  (not  the  **Passover,")  xi.  20, 
the  cup  of  the  Lord"  and  the  **  Lord's  body,"  27,  29.  Now 
Avould  he  have  given  these  liigh  and  honorable  titles  to  a  feast  of 
their  own  invention,  and  one  inconvsistent  with  the  present 
dispensation  ?"  Would  he  have  given  tliem  to  any  but  a  divinely 
instituted  ordinance  ? 

4.  He  represents  our  Lord  as  commanding  it  to  be  observed 
fften.  The  careful  reader  will  observe  that  in  the  25th  verse 
the  Apostle  attributes  some  words  to  Christ  not  mentioned  so 
explicitly  in  the  Evangelists,  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  me."  Now  would  our  Lord  have  used 
this  language  if  he  had  not  intended  they  should  drink  it  more 
than  once,  and  not  on  that  evening  only  ?  **  As  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,"  does  not  this  imply  his  expectation  they  would  drink  it  af- 
terwards ?  Certainlv  this,  as  well  as  the  word  remembrance" 
implies  it  was  to  be  celebrated  after  his  death.  The  only  ques- 
tion is  how  long  ?  If  we  ask  reason,  it  will  answer  forever,  as 
it  will  be  more  and  more  necessary  for  each  succeeding  genera- 
tion. If  we  ask  the  Apostle,  he  will  answer  keep  it  "  till  he 
comes  again." 

5.  The  Apostle  gives  eocpress  permission  (to  say  the  least)  to 
celebrate  this  ordinance.  Some  interj)ret  the  26th  verse  imper- 
atively, **  Show  ye  the  Lord's  death  until  he  come."  But  cer- 
tainly the  28th  verse  is  clear  to  this  point.  Let  a  man  ex- 
amine himself  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  diink  of  that 
cup.'^  And  again  33d  verse,  "  Brethren  when  ye  come  together 
to  eat,  tarry  one  for  another."  Here  is  an  implied  permission 
of  the  feast.  Now  did  he  ever  give  such  a  permission  for  any 
Jewisli  or  unlawful  l  ite  ? 

6.  He  promised  to  rectify  their  errors  on  this  subject  when  he 
should  visit  them  again.  The  rest  will  I  set  in  order  when  I 
come."  And  yet  he  left  this  church  (with  all  the  other  Chris- 
tian churches)  in  the  use  of  tliis  ordinance  !  Now  either  it  was 
**  in  order''  to  keep  this  feast,  or  the  Apostle  failed  in  his  pro- 
mise.   Take  your  choice.  PAUL. 


Sevenlk-dar.  ii'A  Mo.  8,  i8zi. 

LETTER  XVII. 

In  Paul's"  last  Address  to  us,  he  has  recajiitulated  the  num- 
tjcrs  of  our  respective  communications  on  the  subject  of  carnal 


Ordinances,  and  says,  that  as  I  have  written  the  niosi  on  these 
points  he  **  he  presumes  that  1  am  now  satisfied  to  close  the  suh- 
ject.*' — Every  reflecting  reader  will  however  perceive  that  ob- 
jections may  be  raised  against  the  plainest  truths  in  a  very  few 
ivords  wliich  it  may  require  much  time  to  remove.  When  the  Pro- 
testants contended  with  the  Catholics  against  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  the  latter  had  little  to  do,  except  to  quote  the 
plain  text,  "  Hoc  est  corpus  meum,"  whilst,  the  former 
were  under  the  necessity  of  shewing  from  various  passages 
of  Scripture,  that  these  words  were  not  to  be  understood 
literally.  To  illustrate  their  views  and  prove  their  position, 
much  time  and  many  arguments  were  necessary.  Such  is  the 
nature  of  the  present  controversy.  My  opponent  states  a  text, 
and  pleads  its  literal  meaning.  This  can  be  done  in  a  very  few* 
sentences,  whilst  it  necessarily  requires  more  room  to  answer 
and  remove  his  objections.  Were  1  to  change  positions  with 
"  Paul"  and  attack  the  doctrines  and  opinions  of  the  Sect  to 
which  he  belongs,  I  could  in  one  page,  state  more  objections  to 
his  scheme  than  he  could  answer  in  ten.  From  this  view  of  the 
case  it  must  appear  unreasonable  that  I  should  be  confined  to  a 
given  space.  It  is  therefore  my  intention  still  to  pursue  my  ori- 
ginal plan.  It  can  be  of  little  importance  to  our  readers  whether 
**  Paul's"  objections  are  all  answered  in  the  Letter  succeding 
that  in  which  they  appear.  So  that  they  are  answered,  as  soon 
as  the  nature  of  my  concern  will  admit,  I  hope  my  readers  will 
hold  me  excused.  Paul"  may  take  his  own  way — I  hope  he 
will  be  satisfied  that  I  should  pursue  mine.  Whilst  I  may  be 
permitted  to  occupy  a  place  in  the  columns  of  the  Repository, 
my  own  judgment  must  dictate  tlie  course  that  I  am  to  pursue. 

Whatever  my  readers  may  think  of  the  merits  of  my  opponent 
as  a  controversialist,  I  think  they  will  not  deny  that  he  is  en- 
titled to  the  credit  of  a  goodly  portion  of  that  quality  which 
(that  I  may  not  offend  him  by  speaking  the  plain  truth)  I  will 
denominate  ingenuity — this  very  important  quality  he  has  often 
displayed  in  the  selection  of  means  to  evade  the  force  of  an  ar- 
gument \\  liich  he  could  not  fairly  answer.  He  has  in  the  course 
of  the  present  discussion  frequently  asserted  that  the  Apostles 
were  always  inspired:  that  they  were  never  mistaken — this  un- 
scriptural  position  seems  to  be  one  of  his  favorite  oi)inions — 
Yet  he  admits  that  "  they  sometimes  acted  contrary  to  their  judg- 
menV*  and  were  guilty  of  *'  a  weak  compliance  with  Jewish 
prejudices." — In  my  Letter  XV.  I  asked  a  few  plain  questions, 
to  which  I  hoped  Paul  would  candidly  reply.  SVcre  tlie 
Apostles  inspired  to  act  contrary  to  their  judgment  ?  &c." — 
Now  I  suppose  he  foresaw  that  if  he  gave  to  these  questions  a 
direct  answer  he  would  fall  into  a  dilemma  from  which  he  could 
not  easily  extricate  himself — he  has  therefore  xvisely  declined  a 


174 


reply.  If  lie  had  answered  affirmatively  then  it  would  follo\y 
that  tlie  Apostles  were  inspired  to  act  contrary  to  inspiration  ! — 
this  kind  of  doctrine  would  ha^  e  been  too  gross  for  general  re- 
ception !  If  he  had  answered  in  tlie  negative,  tlien  his  own  po- 
sition would  have  fallen  to  the  ground.  1  am  inclined  to  think 
tliat  our  readers  Avill  coincide  in  the  opinion  that  **  Paul"  has 
acted  wisely  by  declining  to  reply.  The  saying  of  Phesident 
AYiTHERSPOON  had  a  great  deal  of  good  sense  in  it,  Never 
speak  unless  ye  have  something  to  say.'' 

My  op])onent  has  resumed  the  subject  of  carnal  ordinances, 
and  as  defendant,  I  am  reluctantly  obliged  to  reply  to  his  argu- 
ments— I  had  hoped  these  subjects  would  have  closed  with  my 
last  Letter,  but  must  yield  to  my  duty  as  defendant  in  the  present 
controversy — the  time  spent  on  them  will  not  I  hope  be  finally 
unprofitable. 

From  the  history  of  the  Apostles  it  clearly  appears,  that  the 
primitive  believers  were  in  the  practice  of  Jewish  ordinances, 
which  I  have,  by  citing  various  texts,  clearly  proved. — Further 
to  illustrate  this  truth,  I  will  observe,  that  notwithstanding  the 
brevity  of  Apostolic  history,  it  is  recorded  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
that  he  was  twice  concei-ned  in  the  practice  of  the  Nazarite's 
Vow.  In  a  former  Letter  my  opponent  says,  the  vow  on  ac- 
count of  which  Paul  shaved  his  head  at  Cenchrea  miglit  have 
been  the  Nazarite's  Vow^,  but  the  Scripture  does  not  say  so." 
Now  I  afl[irm  that  the  Scripture  does  say  so,  in  language  not  to 
be  misunderstood.  There  was  hnt  one  vow  observed  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  that  was  accompanied  by  shaving  the  head. 
The  consequence  is  indubitably  certain,  this  vow  of  the  Apostle 
was  the  vow  of  the  J^^axarite,  see  Num.  vi.  13  :  And  hence  wc 
demonstrate  another  fact,  that  Paul,  though  stiled  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  v.  as  at  least  tivice  engaged  in  Jewish  sacrifices — 
for  at  the  time  of  shaving  the  head,  the  hair  w  as  to  be  put  in 
tlie  fire  which  was  under  the  sacrifice  of  the  peace  offerings  :" 
on  such  occasions  three  beasts  were  slain;  a  he-tamb  for  a  burnt 
offering — a  Ewe-lamb  for  a  sin  offering — a  Ram  for  a  peace  of- 
fering. Thus  it  appears  plain,  that  Paul  in  his  Christian  life 
offered  at  least  six  beasts  according  to  the  law  of  Jloses.  Again, 
thelApostle  in  liis  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  tells  us,  that  he  rebuk- 
ed Peter  for  his  dissimulation  in  sometimes  acting  the  Jew,  at 
other  times  living  as  a  Gentile,  and  yet,  compelling  the  Gentiles 
to  live  as  do  tlie  Jews.  Now  the  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the 
premises  is,  I  tliink,  indubitable  that  Peter  practised  Jewish  or- 
dinances at  tliat  jiei'iod,  w  hich  was  nineteen  years  after  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity.— -Nor  was  it  until  that  time  that  eveii 
tfie  Gentiles  were  rvholly  excused  from  the  yoke  of  circumcision, 
the  Jewisli  converts  stilt  submitted  to  this  Rite.  And  we  find 
from  Ecclesiastical  history,  that  on  the  opening  of  the  second 


175 


century,  a  large  portion  of  professing  Christians  were  zealous 
in  observing  alt  the  ceremonials  of  the  Jewish  Law.  Thus  wc 
see  from  plain  Scripture  testimony  (and  I  have  adduced  but  a 
small  part  of  tlic  evidence  which  could  be  brought  on  the  occa- 
sion) that  the  Apostles  actually  jrractised  many  ceremonies  wliich 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  code.  That  more  cases  of  this  kind  are 
not  recorded,  may  fairly  be  attributed  to  the  brevity  of  the  Apos- 
tolic history.  To  use  an  argument  of  my  opponent  I  might  say, 
*'the  mere  omission  to  record  ai^  the  facts  of  this  nature  no  more 
proves  that  they  did  not  practice  Jewish  ordinances,  than  the 
omission  to  mention  Circumcision  for  fourteen  hundred  years, 
proves  that  the  Rite  was  not  practised  millions  of  times." 

My  opponent  says  **the  Apostle  prfldise^i  Water  Baptism  5" 
that  he  did  it  liabitually  from  the  commencement  of  his  ministry 
that  he  never  condemned  the  practice."'  These  are  unfounded 
assertions  ;  let  the  Apostle  answer  them  himself,  I  thank  God 
1  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus  and  Gains — and  I  baptized 
also  the  household  of  Stephanus,  besides  I  know  not  whither  1 
baptized  any  other,  for  Christ  sent  me  not  to  bapti:ce  but  to  preach 
the  Gospel.'^  1  Cor.  i.  14,  15.  Now  for  any  thing  that  appears 
to  the  contrary,  Paul  sacrificed  more  beasts  in  conformity  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  than  he  ever  baptized  converts  with  the  Watery 
Baptism  of  Jolm,  That  the  Apostles  expressly  and  repeated- 
ly recommended  Water  Baptism"  I  deny — there  is  no  recom- 
mendation or  command,  of  any  of  the  Apostles,  to  use  Water 
Baptism  recorded  in  the  whole  New-Testament,  except  in  the 
solitary  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  company — in  this  instance  it 
is  said  that  Peter  commanded  them  and  only  them  to  be  baptized. 
Not  one  of  the  Apostles  ever  delivered  a  precept  of  a  general  na- 
ture in  fa\our  of  Water  Baptism.  In  none  of  their  Epistles, 
which  were  written  expressly  to  promote  the  practice  of  Chris- 
tian duties,  do  they  ever  command  or  recommend  it  in  any  way 
whatever. 

The  use  of  Bread  and  Wine,  Water  Baptism,  Circumcision 
kr,  are  all  carnal  ordinances.  The  Apostles  in  the  infancy  of 
the  Christian  church,  not  only  *•  winked  at"  but  occasionally 
used  them  all.  Even  after  they  perceived  them  to  be  no  part  of 
the  *'new  and  living  way" — no  ways  connected  with  the  design 
of  the  Gospel  they  condescend  to  become  weak  to  them  that  were 
weak,  that  by  the  use  of  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  they 
might  gain  the  weak,  and  in  this  way  they  became  all  things  to 
all  men,  that  they  might  gain  some — their  motives  were  of  the 
purest  kind — but  some  of  them  lived  to  see,  that  indulgences  of 
this  kind  multiplied  difficulties  and  produced  dissention,  and  they 
became  concerned  to  hold  up  a  clear  and  decided  testimony 
against  them  all — as  by  a  recurrence  to  my  former  Essays  will 
be  manifest. 


176 


I  believe'*  says  my  opponent,  you  reject  all  means  of 
Grace  except  the  Spirit  and  silent  waiting."  This  sentence 
clearly  sliews  his  ignorance  of  the  people  to  whom  he  addresses 
himself — an  ignorance  the  more  inexcusable,  because  he  pro- 
fesses to  be  well  acquainted  with  their  practice.  Docs  he  not 
know  that  without  the  aid  of  Theological  Seminaries,  without 
the  allurements  of  silver  or  gold,  we  have  more  approved  min- 
isters of  tiie  Gospel,  in  proportion  to  our  whole  number,  than 
any  other  religious  Society  ? — Does  he  not  know,  that  these  arc 
frequently  engaged  in  the  public  ministry  and  in  vocal  prayer — 
in  a  ministry,  not  in  the  **  Oldness  of  the  letter"  and  witli  un- 
feeling formality,  but  in  tiie  animating  warmth  of  Gospel  love — 
in  prayer,  not  with  vain  repetitions  as  the  heathen  do,"  but  in 
the  life  and  power  of  the  Spirit  ?  If  a  ministry,  sucii  as  this, 
may  be  esteemed  a  means  of  Grace  we  do  not  reject  such  means. 
Yet  I  cannot  view  such  a  ministry  in  the  light  of  a  carnal  ordin- 
ance— it  is  not  used  to  feed  or  wash  the  Body — to  please  the  ear 
or  amuse  the  senses,  but  to  convince  the  sinner,  to  call  him  to 
repentance — to  come  unto  Christ  the  Physician  of  the  soul — to 
the  washing  of  regeneration, — to  the  participation  of  heavenly 
Bread,  and  of  the  new  Wine  of  the  Redeemer's  Kingdom. — Now 
Carnal  Ordinances  according  to  my  opponent's  own  confession, 
and  according  to  the  definition  of  them  given  by  those  who  sup- 
port them,  are  mere  signs  or  types  of  something  prefgured  or 
typified  and  consequently,  cannot  be  compared  with  a  genuine 
Gospel  ministry,  which  is  not  a  ministry  **  of  the  letter  which 
killeth,  but  of  the  Spirit  which  giveth  life." 

In  answer  to  my  argument  **  that  Carnal  ordinances  were 
never  commanded  by  Christ  in  such  terms  as  conveyed  an  idea 
that  they  were  to  bind  generations,"  my  opponent  says, 

**Neitlierdid  he  thus  command  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  the  Christian  Sabbath — nor  public  worship — nor  fa- 
mily prayer — nor  reading  the  Scripture — nor  any  other  duty  that 
I  can  find  in  the  whole  New^  Testament."  This  I  confess  appears 
to  me  strange  doctrine  !  Can  any  man  read  the  sermon  on  the 
Mount,  and  believe  that  its  doctrines  did  not  appertain  to  the 
whole  human  family  ?  Do  not  the  concluding  words  of  that  Di- 
vine communication  clearly  shew  that  it  was  intended  for  every 
one  tliat  should  ever  hear  tlie  sayings  contained  in  it?"  •*  Who- 
soever heareth  these  sayings  of  mine  and  doeth  them,  1  will  liken 
him  to  a  wise  man,  that  built  his  house  upon  a  rock." — Tlic  term , 
whosoercer,  is  universal — it  applies  to  all  of  every  age  or  nation. 
**  If  any  man  tliirst  let  him  come  unto  me  and  drink." — The 
terms  any  man,  in  tiiis  sentence,  apply  to  all  men,  to  the  whole 
}n:!nan  race.  Let  my  oponent  shew  any  such  evidence  in  favour 
of  Wilier  Baptism,  or  the  use  of  Bread  and  AVine,  and  I  will 
willingly  yield  every  point  in  discussion,  I  will  freely  submit  to 


177 


he  spi-inkled  with  wafer ^  altlioiigli  we  liave  neither  precept  noii 
€xan;)le  tor  s  irli  an  >po{Mtioii  in  tlie  whole  New  rcsta  ni'.at. 

In  my  last  Essay  I  expressed  a  desire  to  know  upon  what 
gr*o;ind  my  opponent  refused  to  obs*.^vethe  positive  commaml  of 
a  dying  Redeemer.  **  If  I  then  your  Lord  and  Master  have 
washed  your  feet^  ye  also  on:^hf  to  wash  one  anothers  feet,  for  I 
have  given  you  an  example  t!uit  ye  should  do  as  T  have  done  unto 
2fo?/."  Here  the  command  is  not  only  clear  and  positive,  but 
plainly  relates  to  the  future.  Let  my  reader  maturely  weigh 
liis  answei" — an  answer  that  I  would  su|)])ose  could  not  satisfy 
any  sincere  and  conscientious  observer  of  outward  and  tvpical 
ceremonies — the  command  is  positive,  the  neglect  of  it  seems  to 
involve  the  contumacious  in  the  awful  jjredicament  of  a  sepa- 
ration from  Christ,  **If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part 
in  me."  See  John  xiii.  8,  14,  15.  My  opponent's  answer  is 
comprehended  under  four  different  heads  :  1st.  He  says  that 

the  Apostles  never  understood  our  Lord  literally,^'  2nd.  that 
**they  nQvev practised  it  literally,  nor  inculcated  it  on  tiie  churclics 
as  a  religious  rite."  5rd.  that  **  it  does  not  appear  designed  for 
universal  practice  because  in  northern  regions,  where  there  are 
so  many  bandages  about  the  feet,  to  wash  them  would  be  a  vex- 
ation." And  4th.  that  **  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  ever  received  this  as  a  part  of  his  commission  or  de- 
livered  it  as  an  obligatory  ceremony."  To  these  I  answer,  1st. 
The  Apostles  submitted  to  have  their  feet  literally  washed  in 
Water,  and,  that  they  did  not  understand  the  command  to  wash- 
one  anothers  feet  literally,  rests  for  proof  on  tlie  bare  assertion  of 
my  opponent.  2d.  How  does  lie  know  that  the  Apostles  never 
practised  it  literally  nor  inculcated  it  on  the  churches  as  a  re- 
ligious l  ite  ?  **  tiie  mere  omission  to  record  the  fact,  no  more 
proves  that  they  did  not  follow  their  Lord's  command,  than  the 
omission  to  mention  cii'cumrision  for  1400  years,  proves  that 
the  rite  was  not  p?*actised  millions  of  times."  3d.  Washing  the 
feet  is  a  most  comfortable  thing  in  all  climates,  and  as  there  is 
water  in  them  all,  it  plainl  v  appears  designed  for  universal  prac 
tice.  "  In  northern  cliinates,  where  there  are  so  many  band- 
ages about  the  feet,"  it  becomes  peculiarly  agreeable,  anfi  to 
wash  them  as  often  as  tiie  Bi  ead  and  W  ine  are  administered, 
once  a  month  at  least,  J  would  not  only  comport  with  comf  >rt, 
but  V,  ith  decency  and  health.  4th.  Although  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  never  received  this  as  a  part  of  his  commission,  for  he 
was  no  Christian  at  the  time  it  was  given — yet  it  does  app-  ar 
that  the  other  Apostles  received  it  and  were  imperatively  com- 
manded to  practice  it. 

Now  all  the  objections  used  by  my  opponent  against  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Washing  the  feet,  may  be  urged  with  greater  force 


178 


against  the  use  of  Bread  and  Wine.  1st.  The  Apostles  ncA^er 
nnderptood  our  Lord  to  perpetuate  the  use  of  Bread  and  Wine 
as  a  Sacrament.  2nd.  They  never  afterw  ards  once  used  them 
literally,  nor  inculcated  the'-'  use  as  a  Religimis  Rite.  Srd.  The 
ceremony  does  not  appear  designed  for  universal  practice." 
—There  are  many  regions  of  the  peopled  earth,  where  millions 
of  its  inhabitants  never  saw  Wine.  It  is  not  the  produce  of 
their  soil,  nor  of  any  country  within  thousands  of  miles  of  them. 
To  these  it  would  be  far  more  easy  to  wash  one  another's  feet, 
than  to  procure  a  drop  of  Wine  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist.  4th. 
It  does  not  appear  that  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  ever  received 
any  command  to  use  bread  and  wine  as  a  religious  act — He  only 
received  a  narration  of  facts  that  occurred  at  the  celebration  of  the 
Jewish  Passover,  without  the  least  intimation  that  he  was  to 
inimic  the  ceremony  ;  neitlier  does  it  ever  appear  that  he  com- 
manded any  of  his  converts  to  imitate  it,  as  my  former  Essays 
clearly  demonstrate. 

My  opponent  declares  that  **C/tns/iam/i/ has  been  the  occasion 
of  murder  and  bloodshed,'^  This  is  a  most  injurious  libel  against 
the  purest,  the  mildest,  the  most  Divine  religion  that  was  ever 
revealed  to  man.  A  religion  that  teaches  in  the  plainest  manner, 
to  **  do  good  for  evil,  to  bless  them  that  curse  us,  and  to  pray 
for  them  that  despitefully  use  us  and  persecute  us."  Murder 
and  bloodshed  have  alv  ays  originated  in  a  departure  fix)m  the 
doctrines  of  Christ.  The  Apostle  James  describes  their  origin 
with  great  precision.  From  whence  come  wars  and  fight- 
ings among  you.  Come  tliey  not  lience  even  of  your  lusts  ?" 
James  iv.  1,  &c.  That  church  under  whatever  name  it  may 
have  been  known,  which  has  originated,  promoted,  or  in  any 
way  abetted  murder  or  bloodshed,  was  an  apostatized  church — 
a  synagogue  of  satan,  let  its  j)retentions  have  been  ever  so  high, 
its  professions  ever  so  im.posing. 

In  the  next  place  my  opponent  asserts,  that  carnal  ordinances 
and  the  Scriptures  are  the  **only  witnesses  for  Christ  on  earth." 
Thus  he  rejects  the  great  and  fundamental  witness  of  God — the 
witness  of  his  own  Holy  Spirit — He  that  believeth  hath  the 
witness  in  himself."  l  John  v.  10.  **  The  Spii  it  itself  beareth 
witness  with  our  Spii'it  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.  Rom. 
viii.  16.  And  thus  he  cuts  off  from  the  possibility  of  salvation 
all  w  lio  have  not  the  scriptures  or  outward  ordinances  for  a  wit- 
ness. About  seven  out  of  eight  of  tlic  human  family  must 
On  this  hypothesis  be  sent  for  what  they  could  not  avoid,  into 
everlasting  ])erdition — a  doctrine  as  cruel  as  it  is  dark  and  un- 
scriptural. 

In  the  next  place,  he  says  <*the  Apostles  address  all  their  con- 
verts as  baptized."  1  suppose  he  means  <*  in  Water" — If  so,  I 
deny  the  assertion.    The  texts  adduced  by  my  opponent  in  this 


179 

paragrapli,  all  allude  to  Spiritual  Baptism — and  in  some,  ex- 
pressly mention  it.  See  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  5.  Col.  ii.  12.  Gal.  iii. 
27.  Tit.  iii.  5.  I  would  particularly  invite  my  reader  to  con- 
sult these  texts ;  they  will  shew  in  a  very  striking  manner  the 
dark  and  carnal  state  of  my  opponent,  who  I  sus])ect  must  live 
in  some  row  where  the  houses  have  no  windows*'  to  let  in  the 
light  of  the  Sun,  nor  any  "  candle"  within  as  a  feehle  glimmer- 
ing substitute. 

As  a  commentator,  my  opponent  has  a  strong  claim  to  origin- 
ality — let  us  put  it  to  liis  credit,  to  balance  his  want  of  consistency. 
In  Letter  VII,  he  says,  **  we  admit  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  Spi- 
rit"—^' We  do  not  look  upon  the  Bible  as  a  person  or  a  Spirit, 
but  a  Book."  In  his  last  he  has  discovered,  that  though  the 
Bible  is  not  the  Spirit,  yet  that  the  Spirit  is  the  Bible  !!! 
"The  Spirit  (mentioned  1  John  v.  8, 10.)  is  not  the  Holy  Ghost 
himself — but  the  Scriptures,  called  the  Spirit,  because  they 
contain  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the  churches!!!" — With  this 
latitude  of  interpi'etation  we  may  make  any  thing  of  the  Scrip- 
tures— If  such  a  looseness  of  construction  were  admitted,  no  con- 
trovei'sy  even  on  the  plainest  truths,  could  ever  be  decided  by 
them.  But  I  am  persuaded  that  the  serious  reflecting  part  of 
the  community  are  too  much  enlightened  to  receive  sucli  irra- 
tional notions  for  Divine  truth.  Bare  assertion  cannot  pass  for 
rational  demonstration,  nor  contradictory  positions  for  the  har- 
mony of  reason.  AMICUS. 


Saturday,  December  ij,  i8ii. 

LETTER  XVI. 


ON  justification. 

Error  loves  darkness  ;  ti'uth  the  light.  Real  Christians  are 
ever  willing  to  avow  the  doctrines  of  their  faith  ;  heretics,  in 
every  age,  under  equivocal  expressions,  or  by  a  total  silence  on 
the  subject,  have  studiously  concealed  their  errors.  Hence 
Amicus  and  all  your  other  writers  are  so  reluctant  to  make 
known  their  views  on  fundamental  points.  Your  view  s  of  Inspi- 
ration f  as  will  be  seen  whenever  an  explanation  shall  be  given, 
are  so  different  from  those  of  other  denominations,  that  they  will 
not  acknowledge  the  inspiration  which  you  hold  as  worthy  of 
the  name.  And  whenever  you  w  ill  state  your  views  of  the  Su- 
preme Being,  it  will  be  found  the  god  you  worship  is  not  the 
God  of  Israel,  but  the  idol  of  the  Deist  dressed  up  with  a  few- 
Christian  features.  If  these  opinions  are  unfounded,  vindicate 
yourselves.   You  call  them    slander,"  prove  them  s%ich. 


18U 


I  will  now  introf'uce  another  doctrine  of  prime  importance, 
upon  which  you  differ  fioni  the  whole  Protestant  Cliristian 
^'orld — Justification, 

The  doctrine  of  the  whole  Protestant  Church,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Bible  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following  particu- 
lars : — 1.  God  is  sl  Just  God,  as  much  disposed,  and  as  much 
obtigated  by  his  own  nature  to  punish  the  guilttf  as  to  reward  the 
innocent.  2.  His  Law  is  Si  just  law  in  its  penalties  as  well  as 
its  lewards.  3.  This  law  w'lU  justify  no  man  without  a  perfect 
obedience,  4.  All  mankind  have  f  ran  stressed  th\s  law  ;  of  course 
j)erfect  obedience  is  henceforth  impossible,  and  consequently  jus- 
tification by  it  impossible.  5.  Tiiat  the  Son  of  God,  being  above 
all  law%  and  of  course  under  no  obligation  to  obey  the  law,  was 

made  under  the  law"  for  us,  that  by  his  sufferings  he  might 
redeem  us  from  its  curse,  and  by  his  obedience  entitle  us  to  its 
rewards.  That  His  single  obedience  has  conferred  as  much 
honor  on  the  Law  as  the  ])ci-fect  personal  obedience  of  all  man- 
kind would  have  conferred  ;  and  His  single  death  as  fully  satis- 
fied its  penalty,  as  the  everlasting  suffei'ings  of  all  for  whom  he 
died.  6.  That  a  perfect  justification  from  all  the  charges  and 
demands  of  the  law%  is  now  freely  offered  and  promised,  through 
the  alone  merits  of  Christ,  to  all  who  will  repent  and  b<dieve, 
without  the  least  regard  to  their  personal  works  whether  good 
or  bad.  7.  That  to  hold  to  justification  either  wholly  or  partly 
by  works  of  our  own,  or  by  any  inherent  or  internal  righteous- 
ness— in  short,  to  hold  to  justification  by  any  thing  else  than  the 
obedience  and  death  of  Chi'ist  is  a  gj'oss  heresy  9Lm\  fundamental 
error.  So  important  are  riglit  views  upon  this  subject  that 
Luther  calls  Justification,  ^^articulus  stantis  et  cadentis  ecclesiae,'^ 
the  doctrine  by  which  the  church  stands  or  falls.  It  is  tlie  car- 
dinal doctrine  of  the  Reformation. 

Now  on  some  parts  of  this  subject,  your  views  appear  to  he 
studiously  concealed  ;  on  other  parts,  your  ex])ressions  (like 
your  general  system)  are  indefiiiite  and  equivocal ;  while  on 
others  the  "  cloven  foot"  of  heresy  is  exposed.  So  far  as  1  can 
understand  your  doctrines, — 

1.  We  agree  in  admitting  the  necessity  of  justification  ;  but  we 
differ  in  the  meaning  of  the  term.  Justification  ;  with  us,  means 
an  acquital,  pardon,  vindication  from  charges,  pronouncing  or 
declaring  righteous  ;  with  i/oititis  "all  one  with  Sanctification,'* 
it  is  a  **  making  just,"  the  same  essentially  with  regeneration, 
or  a  new  heart.  We  use  it  as  opposed  to  condemnation,  you  as 
opposed  to  unholiness.  We  view  it  as  an  instantaneous  act  of 
God  the  Father  ;  you  as  ii  gradual  work  God  the  Spirit;  we 
as  tlic  declaration  of  ^  Judge  ;  you,  the  work  of  a  Reformer, — 
Let  no  one  despise  this  distinction,  for  it  is  the  beginning  of  a 
breach  which  widens  and  diverges  until  it  terminates  in  two  op- 


181 


posite  religions.  An  error  at  the  foundation  saps  the  whole 
jbuilding. 

2.  As  to  the  Ground  of  Justirication,  we  as;ree  in  calling  it 
**the  Rightconsness  of  Christ."  We  differ  in  the  application 
of  the  term.  Bv  this  phrase,  we  mean  the  work  and  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  without  us,  or  that  which  was  prepared  for  us  he- 
fore  we  were  horn  :  you  mean  the  work  and  righteousness  of 
Chi'ist  within  us,  wrought  at  and  after  our  conversion.  We 
hold  to  Justification  by  a  righteousrjess  in  the  preparation  of 
which  we  hove  no  part :  you  hy  a  righteousness  in  which  we  co- 
0]}erafe.  We  mean  his  personal  obedience  and  death  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago  :  you  mean  the  ohedience  which  he  enables 
MS  to  pay,  and  the  death  unto  sin  which  he  enables  us  to  die. 

3.  As  to  S(i}>ct[fication,  We  both  agree  that  it  is  ahsoluteltj 
essential  to  sal\  ation.  W>  differ,  in  that  you  make  it  a  pari  (if 
not  the  whole)  of  Justification  ;  we  consider  it  as  entirely  dis- 
tinct, even  as  thef  \iH  and  evidence  of*  Ju4ification.  We  cail  it 
our  own  rig!iteousness  :  you,  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 

Tliat  all  may  judge  for  themselves,  wliether  these  statement!* 
are  correct,  I  sul>join  the  following  quotations  from  your  stand- 
ard works. 

1.  Barclay  \n  his  Apology,  condemns  the  doctrine  of  man's 
Justilication  *•  from  something  witho7if\\\m  and  not  within  him 
])age  213  :  He  says  some  Protestants  '*ran  into  the  other  ex- 
iremc  in  denying  good  works  to  be  necessary  to  justification, 
and  preaching  up  remission  of  sins  hy  faith  alone,  without  all 
works  however  good,"  page  214  :  He  condemns  tlie  doctrine 
of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  for  **  not  placing  justi- 
fication in  an  inward  renewing  of  the  mind,  or  by  virtue  of  any 
spiritual  birth,"  pages  215,  216  :  Justification  in  his  view  is 
^' all  one  with  sandrfication^^^  P^^gf  222:  **  Christ  alvrays  re- 
commended to  us  7vorks  as  instrumental  in  our  justification," 
page  228  :  **  That  sentence  or  term  the  imjmted  righteousness  of 
Christ,  is  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  Bible."  By  Jesus  Christ 
formed  in  us^  we  are  justified  ov  made just^'^  P^^g®  299:  "The 
immediate,  nearest  or  formal  cause  of  justification  is  the  revela- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  soul  changi^ig  and  renewing  the  mind^ 
by  whom  thus  formed  and  revealed,  we  are  truly  justified  and 
accepted  in  the  sight  of  God,"  page  238  :  <*The  immediate  cause 
of  jdstification  is  the  inward  work  of  regeneration,^*  page  239  : 
"  riiere  is  a  great  difference  between  the  works  of  the  law,  and 
those  of  grace  or  of  the  gospd,*'  page  245. 

2.  Clarkson,  in  his  Portraiture,  says,  *'  The  Quakers  make 
but  little  difference,  and  not  such  as  many  other  Christians  do, 
between  J  ustification  and  Sanctification."  And  then  he  quotes 
from  Richard  Claridge,  **  faitli  and  works  are  both  concerned 
in  justification;" — *'as  far  as  a  man  is  sanctified^  so  far  he  is 


1S2 


justified  and  no  farther."  ^^The  justification  I  speak  of  is  the 
making  us  just  by  the  continual  help  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit," — our  justification  is  proportionable  to  our  sanctifica- 
tion."  Vol.  II.  page  280. 

3.  Kersey 9  in  his  Treatise,  says  a  man  may  be  sanctified  in 
part  and  justified  in  part,  and  he  is  only  justified  in  the  same 
proportion  as  he  is  sanctified,  consequently  entire  justification 
must  be  because  of  entire  sanctification."  He  speaks  of  **the 
imputative  righteousness  of  Christ,  supplying  what  on  our  part 
was  lacking,  on  condition  of  our  obedience  to  the  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit."  p.  59,  60. 

Such  is  your  doctrine  !  We  are  to  be  justified  not  by  Christ 
rvithout  us,  but  within  us," — not  by  "faith  alone,"  but  by  ^'gos- 
pel works."  Justification  is  a  making  just,"  a  *^  renewing  of 
the  mind," — the  same  with  sanctification."  A  doctrine  so  dan- 
gerous every  humble  believer  in  Christ  should  reject  without 
hesitation. 

1.  Because,  it  is  the  perversion  of  an  important  scriptural  term. 
That  "to  justify"  is  not  to  make  just"  or  "sanctify"  but  to 
declare  righteous,  to  vindicate,  to  acquit  is  evident  from  Scripture, 
Lexicons  and  common  usuage.  How  it  is  commonly  used  may 
be  inferred  from  Walker's  Dictionary.  To  justify  is  "to  clear 
from  imputed  guilt,  to  absolve  from  an  accusation,  to  defend,  to 
vindicate,  to  free  from  past  sins  by  pardon."  That  it  is  used  in 
the  same  sense  in  Scripture  the  following  passages  w  ill  prove. 
Deut.  XXV.  1.  "If  there  be  a  controversy  between  men,  and 
they  come  in  to  judgment  that  the  judges  may  judge  them  ;  then 
they  shsiW  justify  the  righteous  and  condemn  the  wicked."  That 
is,  according  to  your  doctrine,  they  shall  sanctify  the  righteous ! 
Job  ix.  20.  If  I  justify  myself  ("sanctify")  my  own  mouth 
shall  condei/in  me,  if  I  say  I  am  perfect  it  shall  also  prove  me  per- 
verse." Here  justification  is  an  act  of  the  "mouth"  the  same 
with  saying  of  a  man  "  he  is  perfect."  Job  xxvii.  5.  "God 
forbid  that  I  should  justify  you."  xxxiii.  32  :  "  If  thou  hast 
any  thing  to  say,  speak,  for  I  desire  to  justify  thee.  Prov.  xvii. 
5  :  "He  that  justijieth  the  wicked,  and  he  that  condemneth  the 
just  is  an  abomination  to  the  Lord."  Justification  is  here  op- 
posed to  condemnation  and  not  as  you  say,  to  unholiness.  See 
also  Ex.  xxiii.  7.  Isa.  v.  23.  Matt.  xi.  19.  Luke  vii.  29.  x.  29. 
xvi.  15.  By  which  it  will  appear  that  you  use  the  term  justifi- 
cation (as  you  do  Baptism  and  many  other  terms)  out  of  its  com- 
mon and  proper  sense,  and  different  from  that  in  which  it  is  used 
by  infinite  Wisdom  in  the  word  of  God. 

2.  You  confound  two  things  which  are  evidently  distinct. 
Justification  and  Sanctification  are  as  distinct  as  Pardon  and  Re- 
nervation,  or  forgiveness  and  virtue.    The  Judges  m  our  courts 


183 


hii\e  justijicil  many  a  man,  i.  e.  declared  him  ligliteous ;  but 
they  never  yet  sanctified  a  man,  or  made  him  holy  ! 

5.  This  righteousness  within  us  by  which  you  suppose  us  jus- 
tified you  must  attribute  either  to  ourselves  or  to  God,  If  to  oitr- 
selves,  then  we  are  justified  by  our  own  works,  in  contradiction 
to  the  whole  Bible;  if  to  God,  then  we  are  not  justified  by  tlie 
righteousness  of  Christ,  but  of  the  Spirit !  For  the  Spirit  is  un- 
doubtedly the  Author  of  all  holiness  in  the  heart.  Thus  you 
confound  the  Son  and  Spirit  and  contradict  the  Scripture.  Thus 
Amicus,  Letter  IX.  calls  the  Holy  Spirit  "the  justifier and 
Letter  XV.  says  <*the  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  (Matt.  xxvi. 
28.)  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  powerful  operation  of  which  on  the 
soul  of  man  remits  not  only  the  guilt  but  the  power  of  sin." 

The  Holy  Spirit  remits  guiW^ — sanctilication  the  same  with 
remission  of  sins  !!  This  is  either  a  barbarous  "  murder  of  the 
King's  English"  or  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the  way  of  life. 
The  word  remit"  occurs,  I  believe  but  once  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  that  is  in  John  xx.  23  :  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit 
they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained."  Here  the  word  manifestly  signifies  to  for- 
give or  declare  forgiven, — precisely  the  sense  in  which  we  use 
the  term.  Now  to  talk  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  forgiving  sin,  or 
jmtifying  from  sin,  is  a  most  barbarous  abuse  both  of  the  terms 
and  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  You  first  substitute  the  light 
within  for  the  Third  Person  of  the  Trinity ;  and  then  to  this  de- 
lusive light  attribute  the  whole  work  of  salvation.  Of  this  more 
hereafter.  -  PAUL. 


Sevenih'day^  izthMo.  n,  1821. 

LETTER  XYIII. 

In  Pauls"  last  Letter  he  charges  Amicus  with  a  "reluctance 
to  make  known  our  views  on  fundamental  points,^'  Upon  what 
ground  such  an  accusation  is  founded  is  best  known  to  himself. 
When  he  first  opened  his  views  on  Water  Baptism,  he  called  it 
"  a  question  of  high  moment  and  of  eternal  consequence^' — of 
course  it  must  be  a  ^^fundamental  point,''  Carnal  ordinances 
lie  stiled  "  badges  of  Christianity  and  seals  of  grace."  Now  of 
what  importance  is  grace  if  it  be  not  sealed  to  us  ?  How  can  a 
man  be  a  christian  if  he  wear  not  the  badge?  On  these  questions 
o^  high  moment  "Amicus"  has  shewn  no  reluctance  to  communi- 
cate our  views — Whether  he  will  manifest  any  o  i  the  other /fm- 
damentals  of  Christianity  time  will  determine.  x\micus  thinks 
it  will  be  proper  to  answer  old  charges  before  we  enter  on  those 
oif  recent  date. 


184 


It  is  a  subject  of  the  most  agreeal)]e  reflertion  to  those  who 
desire  the  j>rosperity  of  Truth  that  the  present  time  is  distin- 
guished b\  a  Spirit  of  free  enquiry  on  religious  subjects.  The 
day  has  dawned  in  the  light  of  which  many  have  discovered  t!iat 
the  dogmas  and  decisions  of  Synods  and  Councils  are  no  longer 
to  be  deemef!  of  equal  authority  with  the  plain  doctrines  of  the 
New  Testament;  that  the  Inspired  Penmen  were  qualified  to 
record  these  doctrines  with  sufficient  clearness  for  the  purposes 
intended,  w  ithout  the  intervention  of  a  learned  clergy  to  make 
them  understood.  The  greatest  obstacle  that  ever  opposed  the 
progress  of  Truth,  w  as  the  belief  imposed  on  the  members  of  the 
church  tliat  they  were  bound  to  follow  the  opinions  of  frail 
erring  men — men  liable  to  err,  not  only  from  the  common  w  eak- 
ness  of  tlie  human  faculties,  but  from  the  powerful  bias  of  pecuni- 
ary interest.  It  was  the  beginning  of  a  very  dai  k  night  to  the 
church  when  Theological  Philosophy  was  introduced  as  the  Ex- 
pounder of  the  r,acred  Text.  Then  was  "the  abomination  of 
^  desolation  seen  standing  in  the  Holy  place."  Like  an  Arch  en- 
chantress she  waved  her  deadly  wand  and  every  green  thing 
withered  in  her  presence.  **The  native  and  beautiful swiplidhj 
of  the  gospel,"  sa}sMosheim,  **was  gradually  effaced  by  the  ^ 
laborious  efforts  of  human  learning  and  the  dark  subtleties  of 
natural  science" — and  false  doctrine  and  corrupt  practice  took 
its  place.  See  Eccles.  Histoi*^  Vol.  I.  Part  2.  Chapter  iii. 
Then  w  as  the  Apostolic  prophecy  fulfilled,  **  The  time  w  ill  come 
when  they  will  not  endure  sound  doctrine,  but  after  their  own 
lusts  shall  they  heap  unto  themselves  teachers,  having  itching 
ears,  and  they  shall  turn  aw  ay  their  ears  from  the  truth  and  shall 
be  turned  unto  fables."  2  Tim.  iv.  3.  Then  did  the  professed 
followers  of  Christ  forsake  him  **  the  fountain  of  living  Waters, 
an 'i  hew  out  to  themselves  cisterns,  broken  cisterns,  that  could 
hold  no  Water,"  Jer.  ii.  13.  Then  was  the  kingdom  of  anti- 
christ exaltej^  and  the  chains  of  superstition  so  rivetted  on  the 
benighted  follow  ers  of  a  corrupt  and  mercenary  Priesthood,  that 
more  than  fifteen  huncired  years  have  passed  away  leaving  a 
large  proportion  of  the  professors  of  Christianity  still  shackled 
with  their  fetters  and  bowed  under  their  yoke. 

The  friends  of  <*pure  and  undefiled  Religion"  will  therefore 
hail  the  present  day  as  the  opening  of  a  new  ei'a — a  time  when 
the  individual  responsibility  of  its  professors  is  beginning  to  be 
extensively  felt — a  time  w  hen  t/mj  will  judge  for  themseTves  of 
the  doctrines  held  out  to  their  acceptance.  No  man  can  re- 
deem his  brother  nor  give  tn  God  a  ransom  for  his  soul."  Psalm 
xlix.  7.  No  man  nor  set  of  men  can  discharge  us  from  the  im- 
pei-ious  duty  of  seeking  tlie  Trutli  for  ours<'lves, — and  if  in  this 
search,  under  a  sense  of  our  own  insufficiency,  we  humbly  **  ask 
of  God,  who  giveth  to  all  men  liberally  and  upbraideth  not," 


185 


James  i.  5.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  present  age  will  be  mark- 
ed, not  only  hy  a  spirit  of  free  inquiry,  but  by  the  tottering  and 
downfall  of  many  gross  errors  and  grievous  impositions  which 
have  long  disgraced  the  profession  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

1  have  premised  tliese  observations  as  an  introduction  to  the 
subject  of  **  Paul's"  addresses  to  us  on  **  Internal  Light,"  in 
treating  of  which,  I  hope  to  shew  that  a  recurrence  to  Jirst  prin- 
ciples, to  the  teachings  the  leading,  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  soul,  is  the  only  effectual  way  by  which  the  church 
of  Christ  can  ever  wholly  recover  fro]u  the  apostacy,  and  be  re- 
stored to  the  beautiful  simplicity"  and  Divine  excellency  of 
her  primitive  state. 

Paul"  in  his  first  addresses  to  us  on  this  subject,  has  very 
justly  remarked  that  **  in  all  unscriptural  systems  tliere  is  a 
radical  error — some  fundamental  principle  upon  which  as  upon 
a  Corner  Stone  the  whole  system  rests,  to  loosen  this,  is  to  sap 
the  whole  building,  a  blow  here,  is  a  blow  at  the  root."  My 
principle  object  in  tiiis  Essay  will  be  to  sliew  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Society  of  Friends  on  Internal  Light"  is  the  clear  doc- 
trine of  the  inspired  Volume — that  a  blow  struck  at  it,  is  a  blow- 
struck  at  Christ  **the  author  and  finislier"  of  all  true  faith,  to 
sap  it,  is  to  sap  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets ; 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone.  Heb.  xii.  2  : 
Eph.  ii.  20. 

After  an  attentive  perusal  of  the  Bible,  after  many  years  of 
deliberation  on  its  contents,  it  clearly  appears  to  me  that  the 
doctrine  of  **  Internal  Light" — ^of  an  immediate  communication 
between  God  and  his  rational  creation  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
one  of  the  plainest  and  most  prominent  positions  of  the  inspired 
penmen.  There  is  hardly  a  page  or  chapter  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  does  not  substantiate  this  view,  as  I  think  can  be 
clearly  demonstrated.  It  was  promised  by  the  prophets — it  was 
preached  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles — it  was  fulfilled  in  the 
primitive  Christians,  and  remains  to  he  the  faith  an?!  consola- 
tion of  all  holy  men  down  to  the  present  day — the  truth  of  which 
I  will  now  attempt  to  pi*ove. 

First — It  was  promised  by  the  prophets. — **  Behold  the  days 
come  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  Covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah" — and  **this  is  the 
Covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel,  after  those 
days,  saith  the  Lord — I  will  put  my  law  s  into  tlieir  mind  and 
write  them  in  their  hearts,  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God  and  they 
shall  be  to  me  a  people."  Jeremiah  xxx.  31,  3^.  Heb.  viii.  S, 
9,  10.  The  prophet  Isaiah  predicting  the  future  glory  of  the 
church,  gives  the  same  sentiment  in  his  usual  sublime  and 
beautiful  manner,  "the  Sun  shall  no  more  be  thy  light  by  day 
24 


186 


neither  for  briglitiiess  shall  the  moon  give  light  unto  thee,  but 
the  Lord  shall  be  unto  tliee  an  everlasting  light  and  thy  God  thy 
g]ory — thy  sun  shall  no  more  go  down,  neither  shall  thy  moon 
withdraw  herself,  for  the  Lord  shall  be  thine  everlasting  light  and 
the  days  of  thy  mourning  shall  be  ended.*'  Isaiah  Ix.  19,  20. 
<*Lor(l  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  for  mine 
eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation,  which  thou  hast  prepared  before 
the  face  of  all  people,  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles  and  the 
glory  of  thy  people  Israel.*'    Luke  ii.  29,  3Q,  31,  32. 

Secondly — It  was  prcaclied  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles — 
When  our  Lord  was  demanded  by  the  Pharisees  when  the  king- 
dom of  God  should  come,  he  re])licd — **Tlie  kingdom  of  God 
cometh  not  with  observation,  neither  shall  they  say,  lo!  here,  or 
lo !  there — for  behold  the  kingdom  of  God  is  tvithin  you/'  Luke 
XV ii.  20.  A  kingdom  is  understood  of  any  i)lace  w  here  a  king 
reigns — where  his  laws  are-promulgated,  and  where  allegiance 
to  his  government  is  expected — this  in  a  Spiritual  sense  is  in  the 
soul  of  every  real  Cliristian.  This  is  tlmt  kingdom  which  is  so 
variously  and  beautifully  described  by  our  Lord  under  the  simili- 
tude of  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,*'  the  *'  little  leaven  that  was 
hid  in  the  meal  till  the  whole  was  leavened,'* — the  seed  that  the 
^*  sower  went  forth  to  sow,'* — and  a  number  of  other  significant 
parables  all  pointing  clearly  to  Christ  and  his  work  in  the  sonl, 
to  that  Divine  internal  light,"  that  **  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world."  John  i.  9.  This  is  that  kingdom  of 
which  our  Lord  spake  when  he  said  **  Verily  1  say  unto  you 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
he  shall  not  enter  therein."  He  that  will  not  receive  and  obey 
this  light  in  the  humble,  submissive,  tractable  disposition  of  a 
little  child  cannot  be  a  citizen  of  this  kingdom. 

To  this  Internal  Light"  the  Evangelist  John  bore  a  clear 
and  striking  testimony  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  gospel  ;  In 
the  beginning  was  the  w  ord,  and  the  m  ord  was  w  ith  God,  and 
the  word  was  God.  Tlie  same  was  in  the  beginning  witli  God 
— All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was  not  any 
thing  made  that  was  made — in  him  as  life,  and  the  life  was 
the  light  of  men — There  w  as  a  man  sent  from  God  w  hose  name 
was  John,  the  same  came  for  a  Witness,  to  bear  Witness  of 
the  light  that  all  men  through  it  migiit  believe.  He  [John]  was 
not  that  light,  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness  of  that  light — tiiat 
was  the  true  light  that  lighteth  every  mdn  tlmt  cometh  into  the 
world  :"  This  same  divine  light  is  called  by  Christ,  the  "  Com- 
forter" that  was  to  "abide  witli  his  disciples  forever — even  the 
Spirit  of  Truth,''  for  says  he,  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall 
\)^,  in  you;  and  at  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  1  am  in  my 
Father,  and  you  in  me  and  /  in  you.  He  that  abidetli  in  me, 
and  /  in  Aim,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit,  for  without  me 


187 


re  can  do  nothing.*'  I  am  the  light  of  the  ivorld,  he  tliat  fo]- 
ioweth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of 
life,**  John  viii.  12.  "I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that 
whosoever  believeth  on  me  should  not  abide  in  darkness,  John  xii. 

Thirdly — It  was  fulfilled  in  the  primitive  Christians. — The 
Apostle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  viii.  9.  &c.  tells  them  that  they 
"  are  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  dwelleth  in  them.  Now  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.  And  if  Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is 
dead  because  of  sin,  but  the  Spirit  is  life  because  of  righteous- 
ness— But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead 
dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up  Clirist  from  the  dead  shall  also 
quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you,** 
To  whom  God  would  make  known  what  is  the  riches  of  the  glo- 
ry of  this  mystery  among  the  Gentiles,  which  is  Christ  in  you,  the 
hope  of  gloiT,"  Col.  i.  27.  To  the  Ephesians  the  Apostle  bears  a 
-  memorable  testimony  to  this  blessed  '^internal  light."  *"  A11  things 
that  are  reproved  are  made  manifest  by  the  light,  for  whatsoever 
doth  make  manifest  is  light,  wherefore  he  saith,  awake  thou  that 
sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead  and  C/jWa^  shall  give  thee  light.** 

If  these  passages  do  not  clearly  demonstrate,  that  tlie  Apos- 
tles and  primitive  Christians  were  the  advocates  of  "  Internal 
Light" — that  they  well  understood  its  divine  nature  and  blessed 
effects,  I  confess  I  do  not  understand  their  language.  The  har- 
mony of  the  prophecies  concerning  it,  with  the  testimonies  of 
Christ  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles,  is  so  manifest,  that  I 
think  every  candid  reader  must  perceive  it. 

*•  In  all  unscriptural  systems,  there  is  a  radical  error." — Any 
system  thei^efore,  that  rejects  Christ  as  the  *•  internal  light"  of 
the  soul,  as  the  divine  aivd  immediate  fountain  of  spiritual  know-' 
ledge  is  unscriptural"  and  radically  erroneous."  **  That 
which  may  be  known  of  God,  saith  the  Apostle,  is  manifest  in 
men,  for  God  hath  shewed  it  unto  them,"  Rom.  i.  19.  *'  Now 
we  have  received,  not  the  Spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which 
is  of  God,  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are  freely  given 
to  us  of  God — for  no  man  knoweth  the  things  of  God,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them  because  they  are  spiritn^ 
ally  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii.  12,  14. 

The  doctrines  preached  by  the  Apostles  in  these  passages,  w  e 
hold  to  be  ^^fundamental  principles*'  of  Christianity — upon  them, 
as  upon  a  corner  stone,  our  whole  system  rests.  "  Paul"  has 
attempted  **to  loosen  it" — *•  to  sap  the  whole  building" — he  has 
'•  struck  a  blow  at  it" — he  has  dared  to  vilify  it  by  opprobrious 
names — **  Christ  in  man  the  hope  of  glory,"  he  calls  **  an  ignus 
fatmis  within,**  Christ  the  true  light  that  lightetli  every  man 
rhat  Cometh  mio  the  world,"  he  considers  wholly  exteriial  and 


188 

altogether  unworthy  of  attention  in  any  way,  except  through  the 
medhm  of  the  outward  senses.  Now  1  think  it  is  evident,  that 
this  is  a  doctrine  of  Antichrist :  "  Every  Spirit  that  confesseth 
not  that  Jesns  Clirist  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God.  And 
til  is  is  that  Spirit  of  Antichrist  whereof  you  have  heard  tliat  it 
should  come,  and  even  now  already  it  is  in  the  world,"'  1  John 
iv.  3.  Every  man  who  can  seriously  declare  that  he  never  knew 
any  thing  of  this  **  Internal  light,  making  manifest  his  sin — re- 
proving him  for  evil — calling  him  to  repentance — rewarding 
him  for  obedience^consoling  him  in  affliction — illuminating  his 
understanding  clearly  to  discern  between  good  and  evil — 
strengthening  him  in  the  practice  of  virtue,  and  caiTying  on  the 
work  of  sanctification  in  his  soul,  has  no  just  title  to  the  name 
of  a  christian,  let  him  assume  what  character  he  may. 

The  doctrine  of  my  opponent  on  this  subject,  has  ever  been  fa-' 
tal  to  the  interests  of  Christianity — it  was  the  ground  and  cause 
of  tlie  church's  apostacy  so  early  after  the  Ajjostolic  age — it  led 
its  professors  from  a  dependance  on  the  great  Head  of  the  church, 
to  a  dependance  on  poor  frail  man — it  caused  them  to  turn  away 
from  the  glorious  Gospel  Luminary,  to  wander  in  dark  and 
crooked  paths  of  human  contrivance — and  I  confidently  venture 
to  express  the  sentiment,  that  the  church  will  never  be  restored 
to  the  beauty,  tlie  excellency,  the  majesty,  of  lier  primitive  state, 
until  she  retrace  her  steps — until  she  return  to  the  spot  where 
slie  first  aberrated — until  she  reject  the  opinions  of  fallible  men, 
the  blind  leaders  of  the  blind,"  and  rallying  again  under  the 
Ca])tain  of  Salvation,  is  led  by  him  who  hath  said,  '*  I  am  the 
Light  of  the  World,  he  that  followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in 
darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.''  AMICUS. 

Saturday^  Dec*  29,  i82f. 

LETTER  XYII. 

ON  INTERNAL  LIGHT. 

With  Amicus,  the  writer  of  these  Letters  cordially  rejoices  in 
tlie  signs  of  the  times.  He  hails  *'  the  spirit  of  free  inquiry'^ 
which  prevails  and  the  increasing  *'  light"  every  where  diff'us- 
ing  itself  as  the  liarbinger  of  the  '*downfall  of  many  gross  errors 
and  grievous  im])ositions  which  have  long  disgraced  the  profes- 
sion of  the  gosj)el  of  Christ."  He  confidently  anticipates  the 
period  when  all  opposition  to  the  Bible,  to  the  Trinity,  to  divine- 
ly aj)pointed  Ordinances,  to  the  Sabbath,  to  the  Ministry  of  re- 
conciliation, to  the  use  of  the  Means  of  Grace,  to  Bible  and 
Missionary  societies,  to  the  insti'uction  of  the  Young  in  Sab- 
bath Schools,  and  to  the  Conversion  of  the  Heathen  shall  cease 


189 


forever  ,*  and  all  tlie  manifold  errors  arising  from  undue  depend- 
ance  on  Internal  light,  to  the  degradation  of  tlie  Scriptures^ 
shall  no  more  delude  mankind. 

W  bat  rule  liatli  God  given  to  direct  us  in  religion — the 
Scriptures  or  internal  light  is  the  question  now  to  be  discuss- 
ed. That  there  is  such  a  thing  as  internal  light,  and  also  a 
**  communication  between  God  and  his  rational  creation  through 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  has  never  been  denied  by  us,  nor  can  be  de- 
nied by  any  Christian.  This  is  not  a  doctrine  in  dispute.  And 
therefore,  the  whole  of  your  last  communication  is  nothing  to  the 
point,  is  lost  labour,  has  nothing  more  to  do  witli  an  answer  to 

Paul's  Addresses  on  the  subject  of  Internal  Light,"  than  a 
dissertation  upon  Chymistry  !  The  question  in  dispute  between 
your  small  Society  and  the  Christian  world,  is  simply  this : 

Has  God  given  to  every  man  an  internal  light  which  is  a  safer 
Guide,  Rule  and  Standard  in  religion,  than  the  Holy  Scriptiires 

That  the  question  may  be  fairly  understood,  it  may  be  pre- 
mised :  1st.  You  agree  with  us  that  there  ought  to  be  some  Rule^ 
some  supreme,  infallible  standard  of  religious  truth.  2.  That 
God  has  given  such  an  infallible  rule  and  standard  S.  That  this 
standard  is  clearly  designated  in  the  Scriptures.  (All  his  quota- 
tions in  his  last  essay  from  Prophets,  Evangelists  and  Apostles, 
imply  Amicus'  willingness  that  the  Bible  should  decide  what  this 
standard  is.)  Therefore,  4.  The  true  question  is  whether  the  Bi- 
ble makes  itself  ihe  standard,  or  gives  that  honor  to  internal  light. 
Lest  the  discussion  should  lead  us  into  too  wide  a  field,  I  would 
observe  further;  the  question  is  not,  1.  Whether  there  be  a?ii/ 
internal  moral  light  in  man.  This  we  admit,  but  deny  that  equal 
light,  or  light  sufficient  for  salvation  is  given  to  all  mankind. 
2.  Nor  is  the  question,  whether  the  Spirit  sometimes  acts  as  an 
internal  guide.  This  we  admit ;  but  deny  that  He  is  given  to 
all  the  world,  or  that  evei-y  man  has  a  sufficiency  of  the  Spirit  to 
be  saved.  3.  Nor  whether  the  Spirit  is  of  any  use  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible.  We  admit  the  Spirit  is  of  great  use  in 
revealing  mysteries,  in  applying  the  word  with  power  to  our 
hearts  :  in  short,  we  hold  that  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  are 
essential  to  an  experimental  saving  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures. 
Nor  4.  Whether  the  Spirit  is  an  unerring  guide  to  all  whom  He 
undertakes  to  lead.  But  whether  we  have  the  Spirit  is  the 
question  ;  wliether  we  can  kiiow  that  we  have  the  Spirit,  or  fol- 
low the  Spirit,  except  by  the  Scriptures.  Nor  5.  Whether  the 
Bible  is  a  good  book,  the  best  book  in  the  world.  This  you  ad- 
mit, and  when  it  suits  you,  say  many  fine  things  in  its  praise. 
But  6.  The  question  is,  whether  what  one  of  your  best  writers 
asserts  is  true  :  to  wit,  '^respecting  the  particular  duty^of  indivi- 
duals, every  one  has  inhis  own  breast  a  nearer  and  more  certain  rule 
or  g^iide  of  conscience  than  the  Scriptures.^'  Phipps  on  Man,  p.  138. 


190 


The  above  quotation  is  a  clear  and  correct  statement  of  your 
views  upon  this  subject.  Having  thus  cleared  the  way  of  extra- 
neous matter,  I  now  proceed  to  show,  that  the  Bible,  and  not 
some  independent  inward  light,  is  the  Rule  and  Test  of  truth. 

1.  Jmicus  tacitly  admits  the  fact.  Reader,  to  what  does  he 
appeal  for  the  decision  of  this  question?  Does  he  direct  you  to 
internal  light  or  to  the  Scriptures  ?  Manifestly  to  the  latter. 
Why  did  he  not  appeal  to  his  own  or  your  internal  light  ?  Be- 
cause he  does  not  know  enough  of  yours,  nor  you  of  his  internal 
light.  Nothing  so  vague  and  ill  understood  can  ever  be  a  com- 
mon standard.  If  there  be  a  nearer  and  more  certain  rule  of 
conscience  than  the  Scriptures," — why  does  he  appeal  to  Scrip- 
ture ? — why  overlook  a  near  and  certain^'  for  a  remote  and 
doubtful  nde?  Let  him  answer  it. 

2.  The  Scriptures  never  direct  us  to  follow  internal  light  as 
our  highest  rule  and  standard.  Let  the  reader  review  the  texts 
quoted  by  Amicus,  and  ask,  do  they  prove  any  tiling  more  than 
this,  that  God  enlightens  some  men  ivith  his  Holy  Spirit?  A  truth 
never  denied  by  any  Christian.  Not  a  single  text  directs  us  to 
follow  any  internal  light  as  our  highest  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice. Nor  can  such  a  text  be  quoted  from  the  Bible.  We  ac- 
knowledge that  in  the  days  of  Extraordinary  Inspiration,  Pro- 
phets and  Apostles  received  immediate  messages  from  heaven  on 
subjects  not  contained  in  previous  Scripture.  But  since  extra- 
ordinary inspiration  has  ceased ;  since  God  has  given  us  his 

whole  counsel,"  and  the  cannon  of  Scripture  is  closed,  such 
revelations  are  no  longer  to  be  expected,  believed  or  obeyed. 
Amicus  cannot  quote  a  text  from  Prophets,  Evangelists  or  Apos- 
tles in  which  common  Christians,  or  men  in  general  are  ordei'cJ 
to  follow  any  other  rule  than  the  written  word. 

3.  Your  doctrine  would  nullify  the  Saiptures.  If  God  has 
given  to  all  mankind  a  guide,  independent  of  the  Scriptures,  one 
which  is  a  more  near  and  certain  guide,"  why  all  this  addi- 
tional expense  of  Inspiration  and  Miracles  to  establish  and  con- 
firm a  rule  of  which  we  have  no  need  ?  If  we  have  in  all  our 
hearts  a  better  ride  than  Scripture,  wherein  are  we  benefitted  by 
a  preached  and  written  gospel  ?  Wherein  arc  we  more  highly 
favored  than  the  heathen  nations  ?  If  God  has  given  to  man  a 
superior  all  sufficient  light  in  his  own  breast,  where  was  tlic  need 
of  a  wi^^e?i  revelation  at  all?  Thus  you  *Mnake  the  word  of 
God  of  none  effect  by  your  traditions." 

4.  Tlie  Scriptures  were  written  for  the  very  purpose  that  they 
might  be  our  rule.  Luke,  addressing  Theopliilus,  says  in  the 
opening  of  his  gospel,  <'I  wrote  unto  thee  that  thou  mightest  know 
the  certainty  of  the  tilings  wherein  thou  hast  been  instructed." 
Luke  i.  14.  Paul  concludes  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  as 
many  as  walk  according  to  this  Rule^  peace  be  on  them  and  the 


191 


Isi'aclof  God."  John,  near  tlie  close  of  his  Gospel,  says 
These  things  were  written  that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ."  &c.  John  xx.  31.  And  in  his  first  Epistle.  "These 
things  have  I  written  unto  you  that  believe  on  the  Son  of  God, 
that  ye  may  know  that  ye  have  eternal  life."  1  John  v.  13.  sec 
also  II.  Peter  1.  15.  The  great  object  in  giving  the  Scriptures 
is  here  stated,  to  wit,  to  be  the  Rule  and  firm  foundation  of  his 
people's  faith.  The  Apostles  were  no  Quakers,  or  instead  of 
giving  Christians  a  written  rule,  they  would  have  directed  them 
to  their  internal  light. 

5.  We  are  commanded  by  the  Prophet  to  try  all  doctrine  and 
all  light  by  the  Law  and  Testimony.  Isa.  viii.  19.  20.  (This  ar- 
gument was  hinted  at  in  Letter^  III.  but  for  a  reason  assigned 
in  a  subsequent  **  Apology."  I  shall  feel  at  liberty  to  consider 
it  and  every  other  argument  in  that  number  more  at  large. 
Through  some  unaccountable  mistake,  instead  of  a  correct  copy, 

-  the  writer  sent  to  press  some  rough  Preparatory  Notes.) 
"  And  when  they  shall  say  unto  you,  seek  unto  them  that  have 
familiar  Spirits  and  unto  wizzards  that  peep  and  that  mutter  ; 
should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God  ?  To  the  law  and  the  Tes- 
timony ;  if  they  (these  spiritual  guides)  speak  not  according  to 
this  wordf  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them.^'  Here  every 
word  is  full  of  meaning.  There  were  persons  in  those  days 
who  pretended  some  internal  unwritten  light  by  which  they 
could  give  more  information  respecting  things  unseen  than  the. 
oracles  of  God.  To  follow  such  light  is  here  condemned  as 
idolatry  ;  and  the  people  are  commanded  to  seek  liglit  from  God. 
How  ?  By  resorting  to  the  Law  and  Testimony.  By  these  all 
spirits  and  doctrines  must  be  tried;  and  should  any  teacher  con- 
tradict the  written  law,  his  light"  was  false,  was  darkness. 
This  text  clearly  proves  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  supreme  Stand- 
ard, Judge  and  Rule  of  truth.  By  this  Rule,  we  of  other  de-- 
nominations  try  your  Preachers  and  your  Books,  and  as  you 
contradict  the  Law  and  Testimony,  we  conclude,  w  hatever  you 
profess  "  there  is  no  light"  in  you. 

6.  Inquirers  after  salvation  were  never  directed  to  look  for 
guidance  to  internal  lights  but  to  the  written  rvord.  Should  a 
sinner  come  to  you  asking  what  shall  I  do  to  be  saved," — 
instead  of  telling  him  Repent  and  be  baptix>ed,^^  you  would  di- 
rect him  to  internal  light  ;  instead  of  telling  him  to  believe 
the  record  God  hath  given  of  his  Son,"  you  would  tell  him  to 

follow  the  openings  in  his  heart."  Not  so  our  Lord  and  his 
Apostles.  When  one  asked  him  Master,  w -at  shall  I  do  to 
inherit  eternal  life  ?  He  said  unto  him,  What  is  written  in  the 
law  ?  How  readest  thou  .^"  Luke  x.  26.  And  there  cannot  be 
an  instance  produced  where  an  inquiring  sinner  was  answered 
by  a  reference  to  the  light  within.    This  would  iiavel)ccn  a  di- 


192 


rect  means  of  making  him  a  prey  to  the  delusions  of  a  depraved 
and  deceitful  heart. 

Here  I  rest.  These  are  hut  the  advance  guard  of  a  host  of 
arguments  in  reserve.  These  however  will  he  sufficient  to  de- 
feat any  force  which  you  can  bring.  The  more  this  subject  is 
examined,  the  more  clearly  it  will  appear,  that  the  doctrine  of 
<^  every  man  having  in  his  own  bosom  a  nearer  and  more  cer- 
tain rule  and  guide  of  conscience  than  the  Scriptures"  is  a 

cunningly  devised  fable,"  not  of  wicked  men, — for  1  verily 
believe  your  Founders  were  more  deluded  than  deluding, — hut  of 
him  who  is  the  father  of  lies,"  and  who,  in  contending  with 
Christ,  (Matt,  iv.)  and  his  conflicts  with  saints  (Eph.  vi.) 
dreads  above  all  things  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the 
word  of  Godr  TAUL. 

Seventh-day,  ist  Mo,  s'-h.  1822. 

LETTER  XIX. 

It  will  be  seen  by  a  recurrence  to  my  last  essay,  that  tlie 
Internal  Light"  which  the  Society  of  Friends  deems  essential 
to  salvation — which  they  have  always  considered  as  the  true 
and  only  foundation  of  genuine  Christianity  is  the  Light  of 
Christ  in  the  soul — Christ  within  the  hope  of  Glory,  whom" 
saith  the  Apostle  "we  preach"  Col.  i.  27,  28.  It  is  a  "measure 
or  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  as  the  Apostle  terms  it,  and 
which  he  says  "  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal."  1  Cor. 
xii.  7.  My  opponent  opposes  this  doctrine — he  cdAls  it  2l  delu- 
sion a  cunningly  devised  fable." — This  however  we  need  not 
regard,  as  I  expect  clearly  to  demonstrate,  that  we  are  one  in 
sentiment  with  our  Lord,  his  faithful  Apostles,  and  eminently 
holy  men  of  various  religious  denominations. 

"  The  question  now  to  be  discussed,  says  my  opponent,  is 
"  What  Rule  hath  God  given  to  direct  us  in  Religion ;  the 
Scriptures  or  internal  light  r"  In  other  words  (as  he  puts  the 
Scriptures  in  opposition  to  internal  light)  Hath  God  given  us  ex- 
ternal  light  or  internal  light  to  direct  us  in  religion  ?  I  answer, 
that  to  those  who  have  the  Holy  Scriptures,  God  hath  given  botli 
an  external  and  an  internal  light  to  guide  them  in  religion. 
As  we  believe,  tliat  the  sacred  Writings  were  **  given  by  in- 
spiration of  God" — that  holy  men  of  old  spake  and  wrote  as 
tliey  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit,"  so  we  bel  eve,  that  tlie 
testimony  of  the  inspired  writings,  can  never  contradict  the 
testimony  of  that  divine  internal  **  light  which  lighteth  every 
man  tliat  cometh  into  the  world."  John  i.  9.  Like  the  strings 
of  a  well  tuned  instrument,  there  ever  was,  and  ever  will  be,  a 
perfect  harmony  between  the  ti  uth  manifebtcd  by  this  light,  and 


193 

tUe  written  or  verbal  communications  of  all  those  wlio  act  under 
its  influence.  Hence  we  believe  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  ar3  an 
outward  rule  of  faith  and  practice — that  all  doctrines  or  opin- 
ions, that  are  repugnant  to  the  clear  testimonies  of  the  inspired 
volume,  are  to  be  rejected  ;  and  hence  may  be  refuted,  one  of 
Paul's  assertions  in  his  last  Address  to  us,  *^  that  A:nicus  ad- 
mits the  fiict,  tliat  t!ie  Bible  and  not  some  independent  inward 
light,  is  the  rule  and  test  of  truth." — Yet  it  will  not  follow  that 
the  Scriptures  without  the  illu.nination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
capable  t;)  impart  the  spiritual  knowledge  of  divine  things — 
♦*No  man  knoweth  the  things  of  God  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God,'* 
I  Cor.  ii.  II.  The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  neither  can  he  know  them  because  they  are  spiritu- 
ally discerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  But  the  natural  man  may  read 
the  Scriptures,  he  may  get  them  by  wrote,  he  may  defend  them 
witii  great  though  blind  zeal,  and  yet  be  utterly  ignorant  of 
-  their  true  design,  their  spiritual  impor* . — There  is  an  immense 
difference  between  a  literal  faith,  and  that  faith  which  works  by 
love,  to  the  purifying  of  the  soul.  Gal.  v.  6.  Acts  xv.  19.  The 
first  is  an  airy  speculative  thing,  that  dwells  in  the  head — the 
latter  is  a  deep,  operative,  sanctifying  principle,  that  dwells  in 
the  heart.  The  for  ner  was  the  faith  of  persecuting  SAUL — 
the  latter  that  of  the  great  Apostle. 

William  Law 9  a  learned  and  enlightened  Clergyman  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  has  ex])resscd  hinself  so  clearly  on  the 
subject  in  discussion,  th  it  I  cannot  forbear  quoting  him.  He 
has  stated  his  views  with  a  force  and  perspicuity  peculiar  to 
himself.  The  Scriptures"  says  he  **  are  an  infallible  History 
or  Relation  of  what  the  Spirit  is  and  docs  and  works  in  true  be- 
lievers, and  also,  an  infallible  direction  how  we  are  to  seek  and 
wait  and  trust  in  His  good  power  over  us.  But  then  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves,  though  thus  true  and  infallible  in  these  repor-ts 
and  instructions  about  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  they  can  go  no 
farther  than  to  be  a  true  history.  They  cannot  give  to  the  r-^ader 
them  the  possession  the  sensibility,  the  enjoyment,  of  that  which 
they  relate.  This  is  plain,  not  only  frojn  the  nature  of  a  writ- 
ten history  or  instruction,  but  from  the  express  words  of  our 
Lord,  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  the  Spirit  he  cannot 
see  or  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  thereforf*  the  new  birth 
from  above,  or  of  the  Spirit  is  that  alone  which  gives  true  know- 
ledge and  perception  of  that,  which  is  **  the  kingdom  of  God." 
The  history  may  relate  trutiis  enough  ab?)ut  it ;  but  the  kingdom 
of  God,  being  nothing  else  but  the  power  and  presence  of  God 
dwelling  and  ruling  in  our  souls,  this  can  manifest  itself,  and  can 
manifest  itself  to  nothing  in  man,  hut  to  the  new  birth.  For 
every  thing  else  in  man,  is  deaf  and  dumb  and  blind  to  the  king- 
25 


194 


dom  of  God. — How  murh  then  is  it  to  be  lamented,  as  well  as 
impJDSsible  to  be  denied,  that  though  the  scriptures  assure  us,  that 

the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  and  must,  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  be  foolishness  to  the  natural  man,**  yet  from  almost  one 
end  of  learned  Christendom  to  the  other,  nothing  is  thought  of 
as  the  true,  and  proper  means,  of  attaining  t/mne  fenowied|§"e, 
but  that  which  every  natural  seljislu  proud,  envious,  false,  vain- 
glorious, worldly  man,  can  do.  Where  is  that  divinity  student 
who  tliinks,  or  was  ever  tauglit  to  think,  of  partaking  of  the 
Light  of  the  Gospel,  any  other  way,  than  by  doing  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  which  he  docs  with  pagan  writers,  whether  poets,  or- 
ators or  comedians — to  wit : — exercise  his  logic,  rhetoric,  and 
critical  skill,  in  descanting  upon  them.  This  done,  he  is  thought 
hy  himself,  and  often  by  otliers,  to  have  a  suflSciency  of  divine 
Apostolical  knowledge  !!! — What  wonder  therefore,  if  it  should 
sometimes  happen,  that  the  very  same  vain,  corrupt,  puffing 
literature  which  raises  one  man  to  a  Foet  laureat,  should  set  an- 
other in  a  divinity  Chair." 

After  many  excellent  remarks  on  this  subject,  he  says,  '*"Now 
to  call  such  Scripture  skill,  divine  knowledge  is  just  as  solid  and 
judicious,  as  if  a  man  was  said,  or  thought  to  know,  that  which 
St.  .John  knew,  because  he  could  say  his  whole  Gospel  and  Epis- 
tles by  heart,  without  missing  a  word  of  them — for  a  literal 
knowledge  of  Scripture,  is  but  like  having  all  Scripture  in  the 
memory,  and  is  so  far  from  being  a  divine  perception  of  the  things 
spoken  of,  that  the  most  vicious,  wicked  scholar  in  the  world, 
may  attain  to  the  highest  perfection  in  it."  **  TImt  one  light 
and  Spint,  which  was  only  one  from  all  eternity,  must  to  all 
eternity  be  that  only  light  and  Spirit,  by  which  angels  or  men, 
can  ever  ha^  e  any  union  or  communion  with  God.  Every  other 
light  is  but  the  light  whence  beasts  have  their  sense  or  subtilty 
— every  other  spirit  is  hut  tliat  which  gives  to  flesh  and  blood 
all  its  lusts  and  appetites. — This  ^tn^\^ty  letter  learned  knowledge, 
which  the  natural  man  can  as  easily  have  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
as  of  any  other  Books,  being  taken  for  divine  knowledge,  has 
spread  such  darkness  am]  delusion  all  over  Christendom,  as  may 
be  reckoned  no  less  than  a  general  apostacy  from  the  Gospel  state 
of  divine  illumination.  For  the  gospel  state,  in  its  whole  nature, 
has  but  one  light,  and  that  is  the  Lamb  of  God ;  it  has  but  one  life, 
and  that  is  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Whatev  er  is  not  of  and  from 
this  Light  and  govei-ned  by  this  Spirit^  call  it  by  what  high 
name  you  will,  is  no  part  of  the  gospel  state." 

W  hat  has  been  said  and  ((uoted  on  this  subject  clearly  demon- 
strates our  position,  that  tlio  Holy  Spirit  is  the  primary  rule 
of  faith  and  practice."  This  will  be  fu'  ther  illustrated 'if  we 
consider,  that  the  Scriptures  arc  but  the  dictates  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.    How  then  can  that  which  proceeded  from  a  divine 


195 


source  be  a  more  certain  rule  than  the  source  from  which  it  ])ro- 
ceeded  ?  Can  the  stream  be  better  than  tlie  fountain  ?  Can  the 
effect  be  greater  or  surer  than  tlie  cause  ?  It  is  absurd  to  aftirm 
it.  The  truth  is  tliat  any  doubt  on  this  subject  must  proceed 
a  secret  infidelity — a  species  of  Deism — a  disbelief  in  the 
imviediate  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  because  no  man  can  ra- 
tionally doubt  that  an  immediate  communication  from  the /o?m- 
tain  of  Divine  knowledge,  must  be  superior  in  every  respect  to 
any  transcript  of  the  Divine  will,  liable  to  be  misunderstood  by 
tlie  most  serious  inquirer,  without  tlie  illumination  of  the  same 
Spirit  which  dictated  it. 

Can  any  one  suppose,  that  the  Divine  will  communicated  to  a 
fellow-creature  1800  years  ago, — the  import  of  that  communica- 
tion written  in  a  Book  or  Letter,  that  book  or  letter  put  into 
the  hands  of  a  transcriber — his  transcript  copied,  that  copy 
copied  again — the  last  copy  translated — the  translation  printed 
and  reprinted — I  say  can  any  one  suppose  that  such  a  communi- 
cation oftheDivine  will,  addressed  to  the  understanding  ^/iro?*;.^/* 
tlie  medium  of  the  senses^  can  be  a  surer  eri(/enc^  of  Divine  truth, 
than  a  direct  communication,  clearly  and  distinctly  made  to  the 
sold,  from  the  Fountain  of  Light  and  Life  ? — To  answer 
affirmatively,  must  I  think,  involve  the  Respondent  in  the  gross- 
est absurdity. 

The  only  way  to  avoid  this  absurdity,  is  to  deny  the  premises, 
— to  declare  plainly,  what  my  opponent  has  insinuated,  **  that 
God  has  ceased  to  communicate  immediately  with  men." — **Ex- 
traordinary  inspii*ation  has  ceased,"  says  our  learned  essayist 
— God  has  given  us  his  whole  counsel," — the  cannon,  of 
Scripture  has  closed," — **  such  revelations  are  no  longer  to  l)c 
believed  or  obeyed."  Thus  we  see  by  my  opponent's  scheme, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  tJie  Origin  of  all  Divine  knowledge,  is  now 
reduced  to  the  condition  of  an  inferior  Agent  ;  his  office  is  to 
take  the  words  that  Moses  and  the  prophets,  that  Matthew> 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Peter,  Paul,  James,  and  Jude  wrote,  and 

apply  them  to  our  hearts."  The  great  Creator  of  the  uni- 
verse is  now  reduced  to  the  state  of  a  mere  interpreter — a  kind 
of  Servum  servorum."  That  this  is  a  very  valuable  thing, 
my  opponent  condescends  to  admit — 'niie  Holy  Spii'it  is  of  great 
use  in  revealing  mysteries," — that  is  in  explaining  the  words  of 
the  Scripture  writers. 

I  do  not  know  what  others  may  think  of  this  kind  of  doctrine, 
but  to  me  it  appears  injurious  to  the  exalted  character  of  the 
Deity.  Those  who  can  entertain  it,  with  a  full  view  of  its  con- 
sequences, have  I  think,  advanced  far  into  the  darkness  of  in- 
fidelity ;  a  state  in  which  unhappily  many  are  deeply  involved. 
•*  Light  is  come  into  the  world,  **  but  men"  continue  to  **  love 


196 


darkness  rather  than  lighV — and  this  is  and  ever  will  be  the 
only  cause  of  our  condemnation."    John  iii.  19. 

Now  I  should  he  glad  to  know  upon  what  authority  it  is  as- 
serted that  extraordinary  Inspiration  has  ceased,"  that  *'  God 
has  already  given  us  his  whole  counsel,"  that  the  cannon  of 
Scripture  has  closed,"  that  "  such  revelations  are  no  longer  to 
be  helieved  or  obeyed."  The  sacred  writers,  I  am  sure  convey 
no  such  ideas.    I  should  therefore  like  to  be  informed  why 

Paul"  has  undertaken  thus  to  limit  the  Deity — to  set  bounds 
to  Him  who  declared  AH  power  is  given  to  me  in  Heaven  and 
in  earth — and  lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world." 

In  his  last  Essay  my  opponent  admits  that  the  Spirit  some- 
times acts  as  an  internal  Guide." — But  he  says,  the  question 
is.  whether  we  have  the  Spirit?^' — or  "  whether  we  can  know  that 
we  have  it,  or  can  follow  it  but  by  the  Scriptures  ? — In  a  former 
Essay  he  asks  **  How  can  a  man  know  that  he  has  the  Spirit?'* 
These  queries  are  about  as  rational  as  the  question  put  by  the 
blind  boy  to  his  companions,  when  he  asked  them  How  do  you 
know  when  the  sun  shines  ?"  One  answer  might  very  well  serve 
both.  To  wit,  By  its  own  evidence."  To  send  us  to  the 
Scriptures  to  know  when  we  have  the  Spirit,  is  quite  as  reasona- 
ble as  it  would  be  to  send  the  delighted  participant  of  Solar  light, 
to  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  Dissertation  on  Optics,  to  know  when  the 
sun  shines.  The  light  of  the  Sun  and  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit are  only  to  be  known  by  their  own  operation.  No  verbal 
dissertation  of  either,  can  give  to  those  who  have  never  enjoyed 
them,  any  just  idea  of  their  nature. 

Paul"  admits  that  we  have  <^  Internal  moral  light,"  but  de- 
iiies  that  light,  sufficient  for  salvation,  is  given  to  all  mankind. 
\Vhere  did  my  opponent  derive  this  notion  ?  Did  he  learn  it  from 
the  Inspired  Penmen  ?  I  believe  I  may  venture  to  say  that  the 
Scriptures  teach  no  such  doctrine.  **  Internal  moral  light"  is  a 
term  whose  meaning  is  I  think  foreign  to  any  thing  taught  by 
the  Sacred  Writers.  The  Evangelist  John  in  the  first  chapter 
of  his  Gospel  speaks  of  a  Light,  which  he  tells  us  is  Christ — 

the  true  Light  that  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world'* — Now  unless  Christ  be  only  an  "  Internal  moral  Light" 
my  opponent  must  be  mistaken  on  this  point.  To  say  that  our 
Lord  is  only  a  moral  light  is  I  think  to  degrade  the  divine  Head 
of  the  Church  to  the  low  character  of  a  mere  preacher  of  morality, 

**  We  deny"  says  our  o])ponent  that  light  sufficient  for  sal-  ' 
vation  is  given  to  all  mankind."  This  doctrine  appears  to  me 
in  the  most  unecpii  vocal  manner  to  contradict  the  whole  tenor  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  to  derogate  from  the  justice 
and  mercy  of  our  olivine  Creator.  It  savours  strongly  of  that 
most  abhorrent  belief  in    unconditional  election  and  reprobation" 


i9r 

— abeliet'  whicli  I  had  hoped  the  enlightened  age  in  which  we 
live  had  nearly  if  not  quite  consigned  to  those  dark  regions  from 
whence  it  came.  "As  I  live  saitli  the  Lord  God  I  have  no  plea- 
sure in  the  death  of  the  wicked,  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from 
his  way  and  live."  Ezekiel  xxxiii.  11.  Now  if  our  Creator 
hath  not  given  **  light  sufficient  for  salvation  to  all  mankindf^' 
these  solemn  expressions  of  God  through  the  prophet  must  be 
false — because  if  God  has  denied  **  light  sufficient  for  salvation" 
to  any  individual  of  the  whole  human  family — then  God  tmist  have 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  that  individual-— hecausQ  to  withhold 
light  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  that  individual  must  certain- 
ly be  according  to  the  pleasure  of  God,  who  has  the  power  to 
give  that  light. 

How  different  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles  is  this  dark 
Creed  of  my  opponent !  *'The  Lord,"  says  Peter  **is  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  coine  to  repentance" 
2  Peter  iii.  9.  Tlie  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath 
appeared  unto  all  7ne?i,"  saith  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  **teach- 
ing  us  that  denying  ungodliness  and  the  world's  lusts,  we  should 
live  soberly,  righteously  and  godly  in  this  present  world.  Tit. 
ii.  12.    '*If  any  man  sin,"  says  the  disciple  wliom  Jesus  loved 

we  have  an  Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  right- 
eous :  and  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not/or  ours 
mily,  hut  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  1  John  ii.  12.  Well 
might  the  admiring  Apostle  say  of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God 
is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him 
(md  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him,^^  Acts  x.  34.  35. 

AMICUS. 

Su'Mrdayy  Jar.,  ix,  J82i. 

LETTER  XVIII. 

ox  INTERNAL  LIGHT. 

To  the  law  and  to  the  Testimony  ;  if  they  speak  not  according  ti> 
this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them.^'  Isa.  viii.  20. 

You  will  agree  with  me  that  a  more  important  question  than 
that  at  present  in  discussion  cannot  be  presented  to  the  serious 
mind.  Let  us  then  seek  the  truth  with  honesty  and  candour. 
Let  us  understand  each  other,  and  kee])  to  the  point  in  contro- 
versy. To  those  who  have  the  Scriptures,"  says  Amicus, 
'*  God  hath  given  both  an  eocternal  and  an  internal  light  to  guide 
them  in  religion."  Granted.  Now  as  both  these  lights  cannol 
be  the  Primary  guide,  the  question  is  which  of  these  has  God  ap- 
pointed as  the  Primary  and  Superior  guide.  To  which  should  we 
first  resort  for  divine  information  ?  To  which  should  y{e  first  di-. 


198 


rect  the  inqiiii  ins  minds  of  others.  The  Scriptures  arc  our  iirst 
resort,  the  light  within  is  yours.  In  my  last,  six  arguments 
were  adduced  to  prove  that  God  refers  us  to  tlie  Scriptures  or 
external  revelation  as  a  paramount  and  infallible  Rule..  And  I 
challenged  Amicus  to  quote  one  passage  where  God  has  referred 
common  Christians  to  internal  light  as  an  infallible  rule.  With- 
out answering  one  of  my  objections,  he  brings  the  following  ar- 
guments, of  his  own. 

Arg.  1.  "  William  Law.  one  of  your  preachers  was  of  our 
opinion."  A.  1.  Except  a  ^enemi  ^ea?im^  towards  mysticism, 
there  is  nothing  in  that  long  quotation  repugnant  to  our  doc- 
trines. 2.  But  had  he  decided  clearly  in  your  favour,  the  Bible 
no  where  tells  me  that  William  Law  is  a  divinely  appointed 
standard.  S.  His  leaning  towards  mysticism  was  his  ruin, — 
leading  him,  inJiis  latter  years,  to  deny  the  Monement,  the  Pu- 
nitive Justice  of  God,  and  to  represent  the  history  of  the  Fall  as 
an  Mlegory  !  (v.  Southey's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  l.p.  314  note.) 
In  his  early  life,  while  he  reverenced  the  Scriptures  more,  he 
wrote  some  very  useful  works,  but  forsaking  a  plain  and  di- 
vinely appointed  Guide,  he  lost  his  way  and  became  bewildered 
in  the  labyrinth  of  mysticism !  And  hence  I  infer  the  danger  of 
your  doctrine.  For  if  it  be  seducing  enough  to  lead  such  men 
astray — of  such  strength  of  mind  and  knowledge  of  the  Scrip- 
tures— what  may  we  not  fear  when  it  is  instilled  into  the  minds 
of  uninstructed,  inexperienced  youth ! — William  Law  therefore 
is  an  argument  against  you. 

Arg.  2.  ''The  Scriptures  are  the  dictates  of  the  Spirit,  and  can 
^  e  suppose  a  mere  transcript  of  his  will  surer  evidence  than  a 
direct  communication  from  the  Spirit  himself  ?"  A.  1.  Granted^ 
the  Scriptures  are  the  *  '  dictates  of  the  Spirit"  and  a  "  transcript 
of  his  will."  Hence  it  follows  (unless  we  suppose  the  unchang- 
ahle  God  to  change  his  mind,)  that  no  future  or  other  dictates^ 
liowever  made,  can  be  a  surer  guide  or  more  infallible  rule. 
2.  Granting  also  tliat  tlie  Spirit  does  covjirm  and  enforce  the 
Scriptures  by  a  manifestation  of  himself  to  the  regenerate  soul, 
thus  giving  to  that  soul  infinitely  clearer  and  more  impressive 
views  of  truth  than  a  mere  rational  conviction  can  ever  give  to  an 
anregenerate  man  ;  still  it  does  not  follow  that  internal  light  in 
general,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  in  particular,  is  the  divinely  appoint- 
ed rule  of  faith.  For,  first,  I  deny  that  the  Spirit  generally,  if 
ever,  makes  this  manifestation  to  tlie  soul  except  by  and  through 
the  Scriptures  read,  heard,  or  in  some  way  understood.  And, 
secondly,  could  you  prove  that  this  manifestation  is  made  to 
some  who  liavenot  previously  had  external  revelation,  it  will  not 
follow  that  this  manifestation  or  light  is  given  to  all  mankind, 
or  if  given  to  all  mankind,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  scriptures 
direct  us  to  internal  light  as  our  guide.    And  this  last  is  the  point 


199 


wliich  you  must  prove,  or  sacrifice  your  doctrine.  It*  you  can- 
not prove  from  Scripture  that  God  commands  us  to  follow  in- 
ternal light  as  a  "  nearer  and  more  certain  guide  of  conscience 
than  the  Scriptures"  you  must  give  up  your  argument.  It  is  in 
vain,  therefore,  to  talk  of  the  clearness  of  the  sinritual  manifes- 
tation,^^— does  God  command  us  to  follow  it  as  our  primary  rule  ? 

Arg.  3.  **  You  hold  that  extraordinary  inspiration  lias  ceased, 
and  that  immediate  revelations  are  no  longer  to  he  expected." 
A.  I  do.  And  until  you  will  work  some  Miracle,  or  give  me  some 
such  extraordinary  evidence  of  your  Divine  Mission  and  Inspira- 
tion as  the  Apostles  gave  of  theirs,  you  must  pardon  me  if  I  de- 
cline considering  your  Sermons,  Books  and  Essays  a  part  of 
Inspired  Scripture ! 

Arg.  4.  You  make  the  Holy  Spirit  the  mere  interpreter  of 
the  words  which  jNIoses,  Matthew,  5lark,  Luke,  John,  and  Jude 
WTote."  A.  This  is  not  the  first  insinuation  against  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  The  Bihle,  for  sooth,  is  the  mere 
word  of  Pe/e?',  James,  John  ^ind  Jude  I  No  wonder  you  have  so 
often  denied  their  infallihility,"  talked  of  their  ''slowness  to 
perceive,"  their  *'  maturing  in  judgment,"  their  '*  mistakes" 
and  '*  erroi's  !"  If  these,  or  any  other  men  are  the  authors  of  the 
Bible,  it  is  apoor  rule  of  faith  indeed  !  But  however  yon  may  re- 
gard Scripture  %ve  "receive  it  not  as  the  word  oimen,  but  as  it 
is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God."  1  Thess.  ii.  13.  Now  whether 
it  be  unworthy  of  a  God  who  always  works  by  means  to  en- 
lighten a  soul  through  his  own  word,  I  leave  the  reader  to 
decide. 

Having  thus  answered  his  leading  arguments,  I  will  now  pro- 
duce some  further  considerations  to  show  that  Scripture  and  not 
internal  light  is  the  Rule  and  Test  of  truth. 

r.  Ml  Scripture  is  inspired  and  therefore  infallible ;  but  all  in- 
ternal light  is  not  inspired,  and  tlierefore  nat  infallible.  There- 
fore Scripture  is  the  safer  guide.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God."  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  Now  is  it  any  where 
said  "  All  internal  light  is  inspired  r"  If  so,  I  have  never  seen 
it.  Benson  and  Conscience  are  but  imperfect  guides  in  religion, 
and  these  guides  all  men  are  liable  to  mistake  for  the  Spirit  of 
Gt)d.  He  who  follows  the  Scriptures  is  sure  to  follow  the  Di- 
vine Spirit ;  but  he  who  follows  internal  light  may  be  following 
his  own  deceitful  heart,  or  the  temptations  and  delusions  of  the 
Snirit  of  darkness. 

8.  Christ  refers  to  the  Scriptures  as  a  rule,  John  v.  39. 
•*  Search  tJie  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  tliink  ye  have  eternal 
life,  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  ??ie."  Now  does  he  ever 
say  the  same  of  internal  light  ?  Has  he  ever  said,  "  Attend  to  the 
light  within,  and  it  shall  testify  of  me  ?"  I  should  like  to  see  the 
passage.    To  apply  to  ourselves,  or  to  men  in  general,  the 


200 


promises  made  to  the  Apostles  of  an  extraordinory  inspiration , 
is  to  put  ourselves  on  a  par  with  those  distinguished  men  who 
were  to  lay  the  foundation  upon  which  all  future  ages  were  to 
build.  Eph.  ii.  20.  *^  Ye  do  err,  not  knowing  the  Scriptures," 
said  our  Lord  to  those  who  denied  tlic  Resurrection.  Matt.  xxii. 
29.  Likewise  the  question  about  the  sabbath,  (Matt.  xii.  3.)  hc 
decided  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture  and  not  to  internal  light, 

9.  The  Apostle  takes  it  for  granted,  that  externa^  mustpre- 
eede  Internal  light.  Rom.  x.  14,  17.  "How  shall  they  call  on 
liim  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  And  how  shall  they  be- 
lieve in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  And  how  shall  they 
hear  without  a  preacher  ?  So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearings  and 
liearing  by  the  word  of  God."  This  text  while  it  proves  the 
propriety  and  necessity  of  Bible  and  Missionary  Societies,  and 
the  utility  of  more  Preaching  than  you  generally  have  in  your 
assemblies ; — and  while  it  proves  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
given  as  a  teacher  to  all  mankind,  proves  that  without  external 
there  can  be  no  internal  light.  In  other  words,  that  there  is  no 
true  internal  light  but  what  comes  to  us  through  the  Scriptures. 

Faith  cometh  by  hearing."  Whatever  light  therefore  you 
may  have,  if  it  be  not  derived  from,  or  received  through  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  not  true  light,  but  darkness. 

10.  As  a  farther  i)roof  that  we  have  no  right  to  expect  the 
Spirit^  except  through  the  Scriptures,  we  have  all  the  conver- 
sions of  the  JVew  Testament.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  Preaching 
of  Christ,  the  Apostles  would  have  remained  unconverted,  igno- 
rant fishermen.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  preaching  of  Petei*  and 
others  at  Pentecost,  the  Spirit  would  never  have  **  pricked  the 
hearts"  of  the  Jews.  But  for  the  preaching  of  Philip,  the 
Samaritans  would  not  have  been  converted.  Acts.  viii.  5.  The 
prophecy  of  Isaiah  and  the  preaching  of  Philip,  gave  internal 
light  to  the  Eunuch,  viii.  35.  But  for  his  residence  among  the 
Jews,  the  Roman  Centurion  would  have  never  known  a  Saviour. 
While  Paul  preached,  Lydia's  heart  was  opened."  Acts  xvi. 
14.  The  Bereans  searched  the  Scriptures  daily  and  therefore 
many  of  them  believed."  xvii.  12.  The  Corinthians  would 
never  have  received  a  manifestation  of  tlie  Spirit  (or  extraor- 
dinary gifts)  to  profit  withal,"  had  they  not  had  the  outward 
gospel.  And  so  of  the  Romans,  Philippians  and  Galatians, — 
of  the  last  of  whom  he  says  "  Receivedye  the  Spirit  by  the  works 
of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?"  Gal.  iii.  3.  How  in- 
consistent then  for  you  to  recommend  inquirers  after  salvation 
to  folh)w  their  internal  light,  when  there  is  in  man  naturally  no 
such  light ! — When  we  liave  no  right  to  expect  intei*nal  sa\  ihg 
light,  except  by  and  through  the  Scriptures?  We  value  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Spirit  as  highly  as  yourselves,  but  we  seek  those 
influences  through  the  Scriptures  as  the  divinely  appointed 


201 


means.  You  seek  them  ^Yithollt  consulting  the  Scriptures,  and 
expect  a  blessing  witliout  using  tlie  appointed  means! 

11.  The  Scriptures  are  a  rule  im-  Freachers,  1  Peter  iv.  11. 
If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of  God.*'    A  rule 

for  hearers,  2  John  10  :  11*  there  come  any  unto  you  and  bring 
'  not  this  doctrine  (of  Christ)  receive  him  not  into  your  house, 
neither  bid  him  God  speed."  Also,  Gal.  i.  9.  If  any  man 
preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  tiiat  ye  have  received, 
let  him  be  accursed."  How  shall  we  know  whetiicr  a  preacher 
brings  the  **  doctrine"  of  John,  or  tlic  •^gospel"  of  Paul,  but  by 
a  reference  to  their  writings  as  a  standard  ?  The  Bible,  therefore, 
and  not  internal  light  is  tlie  Rule  of  truth  for  both  Preachers 
and  Hearers. 

12.  The  high  terms  in  which  the  Bible  is  spoken  of,  proves  it 
a  sufficient  and  perfect  rule.  Ps.  119,  105,  130.  **  Thy  word  is 
a  Lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  Light  unto  my  paths."  The  en- 
trance of  thy  words  giveth  ligiit ;  it  giveth  understanding  to  the 
simple."  Ps.  xix.  7.  The  Law  of  tlie  Lord  is  perfect,  convert- 
ing the  soul."  2  Tim.  iii.  16.  **  The  Holy  Scriptures  are  able 
to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation.'*'    Now  if  the  Scriptures  are  a 

Light," — a  "perfect  Law," — able  to     converV  the  soul — 
make  us  wise  unto  salvation,"  and  render  us     perfect,  tho- 
roughly furnished  unto  all  good  works,"  (2  Tim.  iii.  17.)  what 
can  we  want  more  t 

13.  Lastly;  our  doctrine  honours,  your  doctrine  dishonours 
both  the  Scriptures  and  the  Spirit.  There  never  yet  arose  a  sect 
professing  your  leading  doctrine,  but  always  undervalued  or 
perverted  the  Scriptures.  The  Anabaptists  of  Germany  were 
the  first  (since  the  Reformation)  who  adopted  the  principle  that 
the  spirit  speaking  within  is  the  primary  rule.  Accordingly 
thcy  overruled  or  abused  Scripture  whenever  it  opposed  their  in- 
clinations. Mnnxer,  one  of  their  leaders,  marricfl  eleven  wives, 
killed  a  number  of  his  companions,  and  under  pretence  of  setting 
up  a  spiritual  kingdom,  issued  orders  to  kill  all  the  Priests 
and  Magistrates  in  tl»e  world."    Bockholdt  declared  himself 

king  of  Sion."  David  George  believed  himself  tlie  '*  true  Son 
of  God."  Did  this  honour  either  Scripture  or  the  Spirit  ^  In 
the  next  century,  internal  light  led  Swedenborg,  by  his  celes- 
tial" sense  of  Scripture,  to  refine  away  the  literal  and  projjer 
sense, — to  deny  tlie  iVtonement,  the  Resurrection  of  the  material 
body,  and  to  believe  that  he  held  daily  conversation  with  the 
Apostles,  Angels  and  with  the  Lord  himself!  1  will  not  pain 
you  by  a  recital  of  the  extravagancies  of  Miylor  and  others  of 
George  Fox's  early  followers.  You  cannot  deny  but  in  follow- 
ing their  supposed  internal  guide  they  were  guilty  of  the  most 
impious  and  blasphemous  conduct. 

2ti 


202 


The  Shakers  arc  a  branch  of  your  Society.  They  still  retain 
your  dress,  plain  language,  opposition  to  oaths,  "  internal  light," 
Iind  only  or  chiefly  condemn  you  for  having  something  like  a 
Creed.  In  tlieir  book  published  a  few  years  ago  called  Testi- 
mony to  Christ's  Second  Appearing,"  t!iey  state,  lest  the  reader 
sliould  consider  it  their  creed,  tliat  **  these  are  the  present  senti- 
ments of  our  leading  members,"  reserving  room  for  any  future 

gift"  or  contradictory  communication.  They  have  entirely 
new  modelled  thoi  Scriptures,  altering  any  part  of  it  according  to 
later  revelations.  1  have  only  to  add  that  your  Society  are  led 
by  the  same  erroneous  preference  of  internal  light  and  imme- 
diate revelations,  to  undervalue  proportionably  the  Scriptures  of 
truth.  You  take  from  them  every  honourable  epithet,  such  as 
"the  Gospel,"  "Revelation,"  "Word  of  God,"  "  Law  and 
Testimony,"  and  apply  these  to  internal  liglit.  You  say  little 
of  the  "outward"  and  much  of  the  "  inward  coming"  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ : — little  of  his  Atonement,  and  much  of  his 
internal  rigliteousness ; — you  exclude  the  sacred  volume  from  your 
jdaces  of  tvorship — quote  it  as  you  would  any  other  authentic 
history — oppose  its  circulation  by  Bible  and  Missionary  Socie- 
ties, and  treat  the  Scriptures  as  a  sort  of  half-inspired  allegory. 
In  sliort  you  reject  it  as  a  guide,  you  refine  all  its  doctrines  in 
the  crucible  of  mysticism,  and  reduce  the  beautiful  system  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  something  little  differing  from  the 
creed  of  Socrates  or  Cicero. 

If  your  doctrine  be  not  a  dangerous  error,  there  never  was  an 
error  held  ;  if  our  doctrine  be  not  worth  contending  for,  Chris- 
tianity is  of  little  consequence.  PAUL. 


Seventh-day,  \St.  Mo.  19,  1822 

LETTER  XX. 

Amicus  can  fully  subscribe  to  the  sentiment  "that  a  more  im- 
portant sub  ject  than  the  one  now  under  discussion  cannot  be  pre- 
sented to  the  serious  mind."  Whether  God  has  created  myriads 
of  human  beings  destined  to  an  endless  existence,  placed  them  in 
a  state  of  probation  where  their  final  liappiness  or  misery  is  to 
be  detei-mined,  and  has  denied  them  the  means  of  salvation  ?  Or, 
whether  he  lias  furnished  evei*y  rational  creature  w  ith  the  means 
of  securing  his  favour  and  en  joying  it  eternally  ? — Whether  the 
Deity  we  worship  is  a  God  of  Justice,  Love  and  Mercy — or 
wiiether  he  is  cruel  and  capricous  in  the  last  degree  ?  are  ques- 
tions that  ai'e  deejily  involved  in  the  present  controversy. 

In  my  last  Essay  I  quoted  some  passages  from  tlie  writings 
of  the  truly  enlightened  AVilliam  Laav.    I  quoted  them,  not 


ao3 

because  lie  was  a  preacher  of  my  opponent* s  opinion  or  persua- 
sion— not  because  he  was  a  divinely  appointed  standard'' — I 
am  too  well  acquainted  with  his  writings  to  suppose,  either  tliat 
he  was  an  infallible  standard  of  religious  truth  or  that  in  temper 
or  principle  he  in  the  least  resembled  my  opponent.  I  quoted 
him  because  the  sentiments  he  advanced  were  so  consonant  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  to  sound  reason  tliat  I 
was  persuaded  they  would  carry  conviction  to  the  heart  and  un- 
derstanding of  every  unprejudiced  reader. 

*^ Except"  says  my  opponent  *^a  general  leaning  towards 
mysticism  there  is  nothing  in  that  long  quotation  repugnant  to 
our  doctrine." — Paul"  could  hardly  have  expressed  his  aver- 
sion to  William  Law's  doctrine  in  more  forcible  language  tlian 
by  ascribing  to  its  supporter  a  general  leaning  towards  mys- 
ticism."— Mysticism  is  a  term  so  repugnant  to  the  feelings  of 
my  opponent  that  it  seems  by  several  of  his  Essays  sufficient  to 
call  forth  all  his  efforts  to  oppose  it — the  inference  is  unavoida- 
ble, Law's  sentiments  are  wholly  to  be  reprobated. 

His  leaning  towards  mysticism  was  his  ruin."  This  is  the 
first  time  I  ever  heard  tliat  William  Law  was  ruined  !  Now  in 
what  did  this  ruin  consist  ?  Did  he  lose  his  peace  of  mind,  his 
communion  with  God  the  fountain  of  all  consolation  ?  No. — Did 
he  lose  ^*  the  pearl  of  great  price"  for  whose  sake  he  accounted 
the  wealth,  the  glory  and  honour  of  this  world  as  dross  ?  No. 
Did  he  lose  the  consoling  assurance  of  future  blessedness  on 
his  death  bed  ?  No.  What  then  did  he  lose  ?  Why  he  lost  or 
rather  refused  what  some  people  tiiink  worth  more  tlian  all 
these !  A  rich  Benefice !  This  was  the  only  ruin  that  ever  at- 
tended him.  A  ruin  as  welcome  to  this  heavenly  minded  man 
as  the  largest  salary  is  to  the  most  selfish  priest  in  Christendom. 

Thomas  Hartley,  a  clergyman  of  the  Episcopal  church  has 
borne  an  ample  testimony  to  the  superior  excellence  of  William 
Law  as  an  enlightened  minister  of  the  Gospel.  His  sentiments 
sufficiently  refute  the  charge  that  he  represents  the  history  of 
the  fall  as  an  allegory."  The  loss  of  the  divine  life  through  the 
fall  is  one  of  Law's  most  prominent  doctrines.  He  too  well 
knew  its  truth  to  represent  it  as  a  fiction  or  an  allegory.  On 
the  reality  of  the  fall  of  man  all  his  arguments,  to  prove  the 
necessity  of  the  new  birth  are  founded.  His  explanation"  says 
Hartley  "  of  the  gracious  method  of  our  redemption  by  Jesus 
Christ  in  the  way  of  our  union  with  him,  and  receiving  a  divine 
ftature  from  him  presents  itself  as  the  sole  possible  remedy  of 
man's  misery — the  only  conceivable  ground  of  his  salvation.  It 
sets  forth  Go(Vs  love  to  all  without  partiality  in  providing  a  Sa- 
viour for  all  under  every  dispensation  ;  and  re|)reseiits  Chi'ist  as 
that  Saviour  in  the  most  intimate  relation  to  us  that  can  l)e — even 
as  that  quickening  Sjmit  which  is  the  soul's  true  and  only  happy 


204 


iiCe."  It*  my  readers  desii'e  any  further  refutation  of  **  Paul's" 
charges  against  William  Law,  let  them  consult  the  account  of  his 
life  prefixed  to  the  Boston  Edition  of  his  Serious  call  to  a  de- 
vout and  holy  life,  1808.  This  Avill  I  a|)])rehend  he  a  much  bet- 
ter standard  to  decide  the  question  of  William  Law's  religious 
character  than  **  Soutliey's  life  of  Wesley,*'  If**Southey"  is 
not  a  very  poor  judge  of  religious  characters  and  of  Gospel 
truths,  I  have  much  undervalued  his  merits. 

Having  briefly  endeavoured  to  rescue  the  memory  of  the  ex- 
cellent William  Law  from  the  aspersions  of  my  opponent,  I  Avill 
now  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  the  great  Question.  What  has 
God  appointed  as  the  primary  Guide,  to  direct  us  in  our  religi- 
ous concerns  ?  We  believe,  on  the  ground  cf  the  clearest  Scrip- 
ture evidence,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  tlic  principal  and  primary 
Rule  of  Faith,  and  that  it  is  the  Christian's  Guide,  expressly  ap- 
pointed to  lead  him  into  all  truths  relating  to  his  salvation. 

The  first  passage  1  shall  quote  to  prove  our  position  is  the 
promise  of  Christ  Idmself,  John  xiv.  26  :  The  Comforter 
rvhich  is  the  Holy  Ghosts  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name, 
He  shall  teach  you  all  things,  I  have  many  things  to  say  unto 
you  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now  ;  howbeit  when  He,  the  Spirit 
of  Tniih  is  come  He  will  guide  you  into  all  truth.^'  John  xvi.  1 3. 
With  this  doctrine  of  our  Lord  the  testimony  of  the  Evangelist 
perfectly  accords.  The  anointing  which  ye  have  received  of 
him  abidcth  in  tjou,  and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you  but 
as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  all  things  and  is  truth  and  is  no 
lie,  1  Joli  ii.  j7.  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  two  passages  of 
Scripture  could  possibly  run  more  parallel  than  these.  In  the 
foi  iner  Christ  promises  the  Holy  Spirit  which  was  to  teach  his 
followers  all  things — in  the  latter  the  Evangelist  declares  the 
fulfilment  of  this  promise,  "  the  anointing  teacheth  you  all  things 
and  is  truth  and  is  no  lie."  These  texts  point  out,  1st.  The  na- 
ture of  this  Guide — **the  Holy  Spirit."  2ndly  His  office  as  a 
'  teacher,  He  shall  teach  you?'  3dly,  JFhat  He  teacheth,  All 
things,"  every  thing  necessary  to  salvation.  4thly,  Where  he 
teacheth,  **The  anoin+iiig  which  ye  have  received  abideth  in  you.'* 
5thly,  His  sufficiency  as  a  teacher  "  Ye  need  not  that  any  man 
tearh  you,  but  as  the  same  anointing  teacheth  you  all  things." 
And  6thly,  The  certainty  of  this  teacher,  that  it  is  no  "delusion" 
— It  is  truth  and  is  no  lie." 

From  all  which  it  is  evident,  that  the  "  Internal  Light"  of 
the  Holy  Sj)irit — the  Word  nigh  in  the  heart  and  in  the  mouth, 
which  tlie  Apostles  preached,  Rom.  x.  8.  This  *•  true  Light  that 
iighteth  every  man  that  conieth  into  the  world,  John  i.  9.  That 
Light  of  \\hi(  h  our  Lord  said,  **  He  that  followeth  it  shall  not 
walk  in  daj'kness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life,  John  viii.  12. 
Fi  om  all  this  I  say  it  is  evident  that  this  Divine  Light  is  mr 


205 


*•  ignis  tatuus'' — no  *•  cunningly  devised  table,*'  but  the  blessed 
and  all  sufficient  means  of  Salvation,  tiie  anointed  teacher  of  the 
New  Covenant  dispensation — Avithout  which,  though  Ave  may  be 
in  possession  of  all  other  means,  we  are  dark  and  blind  and  ig- 
norant in  divine  things — with  which,  though  destitute  of  every 
other  Teacher  we  may  attain  to  the  true  and  saving  knowledge 
of  God. 

Now  I  think  it  w  ill  not  be  difficult  to  demonstrate  that  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit  is  and  must  be  the  principal  rule,  because  it  is  the  Foun- 
tain of  all  truth.  The  inspired  w  ritings  are  but  streams  from 
this  fountain.  Now  which  is  the  prindpal — the  Fountain  or  the 
stream  ?  No  rational  man  can  hesitate  a  moment  to  answer  tiiis 
question.  It  will  be  equally  easy  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  t\\Q  primary  ru\i\  First,  In  point  of  time.  Abraliam,  Isaac 
and  Jacob  w  ere  utterly  destitute  of  the  Scriptures — No  part  of 
them  were  written  until  some  centuries  after  their  decease, 
yet  they  had  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  But," 
says  my  opponent  **  the  question  is,  Whether  wc  can  know  tliat 
we  have  the  Spirit,  but  by  the  Scri^  tures  r"  This  question  w  hich 
only  serves  to  shew  the  dark  state  of  the  querist,  may  be  suffici- 
ently answered  by  another  question — How  did  these  patriarchs 
know  tliat  they  had  the  spirit  ?  They  had  no  Scriptures  to  resort 
to  for  this  purpose.  Were  they  led  by  an  **  ignis  fatuus" — Did 
they  follow  **a  cunningly  devised  fabler"  Any  reply  to  these 
queries  must  involve  my  opponent  in  a  dilemma — If  he  should 
answer  affirmatively,  he  w  ill  contradict  the  plainest  Scri])ture 
evidence — if  negatively,  he  must  admit  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  prim ary  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Second.  In  point  of  importance  it  is  also  tbe  primary  Rule. 
Because  by  means  of  the  Holy  Spirit  salvation  is  attainable 
tvithout  the  aid  of  ike  Holy  Scriptures  ;  else  w  ere  Al)rahan?,  Isaac 
and  Jacob  consigned  to  perdition,  else  three  foiirths  of  the  wliole 
human  family  have  gone  to  destruction  by  the  providence  or 
rather  t!ie  improvidence  of  God,  w  hich  it  would  be  injurious  to 
the  character  of  our  merciful  creator  to  believe — Again,  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  primary  rule,  because  salxaiion  cannot  he  at- 
tained tvithout  its  agency,  Except  a  man  be  born  again  of  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  I'he  conclusion  to 
be  draw  n  from  the  premises  is  unanswerable — I'he  Holy  S])irit 
is  tlie  primary  rule,  both  in  point  of  time  and  in  point  of  impor- 
tance, and  this  establishes  our  position.  **  That  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  the  principal  and  primary  Rule  of  Faith  and  practice." 

As  w  as  observed  in  my  last  essay,  any  doubt  on  this  subject 
must  arise  from  the  source  of  all  Infideiity.  It  is  a  genuir.e 
branch  of  Deism.  Deism  is  most  strongly  ciiai  acterized  by  its 
rejection  of  Divine  Revelation,  My  opponent  denies  divine  reve- 
lation to  three  fourths  of  mankind,  and  affirms  that  tlie  nllicr 


206 


fourth  can  only  have  it  through  the  medium  of  the  Scriptures. 
Thus  he  not  only  contradicts  tlie  plainest  Scripture  testimonies — 
not  only  limits  the  love  and  mercy  of  God  ;  hut,  hy  uniting  with 
the  Deist  in  three  fourths  of  his  scheme,  gives  liim  the  greatest 
encouragement  to  contend  for  the  remaining  fraction  of  it,  and 
to  cut  off  the  whole  human  family  from  any  union  or  communion 
with  God,  or  any  knowledge  of  his  Will. 

<^  Immediate  Revelations  are  no  longer  to  he  expected,"  says 
our  opponent — No  man  knoweth  the  things  of  God  hut  hy 
the  Spirit  of  God,"  saith  the  Apostle — **  the  things  that  God 
hath  prepared  for  them  that  love  him,  he  hath  revealed  to  us  by 
his  Spirit,^'  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  10.  'Now  \  f  immediate  revelations  have 
ceased,  and  the  Apostle's  doctrine  remains  to  he  true,  no  man 
in  the  present  day  can  know  the  things  of  God  at  all — nor  have 
any  enjoyment  of  the  things  which  God  hath  j)repared  for  them 
that  love  him ! 

My  opponent  affirms  that  God  always  works  by  means.'* 
Now  either  this  assertion  is  false,  or  the  Scriptures  are  not  true. 

GoJ,"  saith  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  who  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to 
give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Glory  of  God  in  the  face 
of  Jesus  Christ ;  hut  we  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels, 
that  the  excellency  of  the  power  may  be  of  God  and  not  of  us.'^ 
2  Cor.  iv.  6,  7.  In  tliis  passage  two  points  are  demonstrated. 
First.  That  the  Light  which  gives  the  knowledge  of  God,  is 
immediately  communicated^  "  God  hath  shined,'^  Secondly.  That 
this  Light  is  an  "  Internal  Light" — God  hath  shined  in  our 
hearts** — we  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels** — Now  it  is 
undeniably  evident,  that  the  Apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the 
same  divine  light,  which  the  Evangelist  said  was  the  true  light 
that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  John  i.  19. 

"  Paul"  says,  "the  Scriptures  are  a  transcript  of  the  Divine 
will,  and  that  it  follows,  that  no  further  or  other  dictates  how- 
ever made,  can  le  a  surer  guide  or  more  infallible  rule."  When 
the  real  state  of  the  case  is  fairly  made  out,  this  conclusion  will 
be  found  erroneous,  because,  an  immediate  communication  of  the 
Divine  will  to  the  soul,  needs  no  interpreter  to  make  it  clearly 
understood,  it  is  self  evident — But  the  Scriptures  being  an  out- 
ward communication  addressed  to  the  understanding  through  the 
medium  of  the  senses,  we  are  extremely  liable  to  misunderstand 
them.  Paul"  interprets  a  text  one  way — Amicus  understands 
it  in  a  different  sense — Now  who  shall  decide  the  case  ?  Shalf 
we  go  to  the  Commentators?  We  shall  find  them  discordant — 
none  more  contradictory  than  they.  Calvin  tells  me  one  thing, 
Luther  another,  Melancthon  another;  after  wading  through  the 
writings  of  the  ancient  Fathers,  consulting  the  Reformers  and 
applying  to  the  modern  Doctors  we  shall  find  ourselves  just 


207 


where  we  set  out,  or  perhaps  worse  bewildered  by  the  jarring 
and  conflicting  opinions  of  our  fallible  counsellors.  From  these 
considerations  the  correctness  of  my  position  as  expressed  in 
my  last  Essay,  must  I  think  be  evident,  that  an  immediate 
communication  from  the  fountain  of  Divine  knowledge  must  be 
superior  in  every  respect  to  any  transcript  of  the  Divine  Will, 
liable  to  be  misunderstood  by  the  most  serious  inquirer  without 
the  illumination  of  the  same  spirit  whicli  dictated  it." 

My  opponent  aflirms  that  the  Scriptures  never  direct  us  to 
internal  Light."  Now  tbe  truth  is  they  seldom  if  cr  direct 
us  to  any  otlier  Light.  I  do  not  recollect  a  single  passage  in 
the  whole  New  Testament  that  directs  Christians  to  resort  to  the 
Scriptures  for  light, — I  am  certain  my  opponent  has  not  q  loted 
one.  In  the  text  John  v.  39.  Paul  says  **  Christ  refers  to  the 
Scriptures  as  a  rule."  This  however  is  not  true  as  I  think  can 
be  clearly  proved.  In  the  first  place  the  present  translation 
does  not  render  the  original  correctly.  By  the  rules  of  the  Greek 
Grammar  the  word  Ereuxate  may  be  understood  either  in- 
dicativelij  or  Imperatively  ; — the  second  person  plural  of  the 
Indicative  and  Imperative  Moods  being  exactly  the  same  in  the 
Greek  language.  The  context  I  think  clearly  proves  that  it 
ought  to  have  been  rendered  indicatively,  **Ye  search  the  Scrip- 
tures." From  the  37  to  the  47  verses  inclusive  our  Lord's  lan- 
guage is  one  continued  strain  of  severe  reproof  to  the  Jews, 
who  were  then  seeking  to  kill  him.  In  tlie  text  in  question  he 
tells  them  1st.  "Ye  search  the  Scriptures,"  he  then  tells  them  the 
reason  why  they  searched  them  **  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have 
eternal  life,"  thereby  intimating  their  gross  mistake. — He  then 
goes  on  to  shew  them  that  though  the  Sci'iptui'e  prophecies  tes- 
tified of  him  by  predicting  his  coming,  yet  that  when  he  had 
come — these  blind  Jews  rejected  and  would  not  come  unto  him 
the  fountain  of  Light  and  Life  that  they  might  have  life.  **  And 
they  are  they  that  testify  of  me,  and  ye  will  not  come  unto  me 
that  ye  might  have  life."  Several  of  the  best  modern  transla- 
tions of  the  Bible  sanction  this  view  of  the  subject,  particular- 
ly that  of  the  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  lately  published  in  New 
York. — For  want  of  room  I  must  postpone  a  reply  to  his  other 
arguments  on  this  subject  to  a  future  number. 

Towards  the  close  of  his  last  essay  Paul"  brings  a  curious 
argument  against  the  doctrine  of  **  Internal  Light."  He  thinks 
the  conduct  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Munster — the  errors  of  David 
George — Bockholdt,  Munzei* — Swedenborg  and  Naylor  a  strong 
objection  to  the  doctrine.  This  objection  whatever  force  it 
may  have  is  equally  forcible  against  his  own  scheme  ?  for 
if  we  are  to  reject  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  rule  of  action,  because 
some  professing  to  be  guided  by  this  Heavenly  Teacher  have 
misconducted  tliemsclves. — On  the  same  principle  wc  must  reject 


208 


the  Holy  Scriptures,  seeing  that  mamj  who  have  professed  to 
be  guided  by  them,  have  been  guilty  of  tlie  grossest  errors 
both  in  faith  and  practise.  The  Catholics  cite  them  to  prove 
that  the  material  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  really  and 
substantially  present  in  the  Eucharist.  **  This  is  niy  Body, 
this  is  my  Blood."  Persecutors  whetlier  Papists  or  Protestants 
have  attempted  to  prove  by  Scripture  that  killing  of  heretics  is 
authorized  by  the  Gospel.  I  would  they  were  even  cutoff 
that  trouble  you."  Gal.  v.  12.  Wlien  the  people  of  New  Eng- 
land persecuted  the  Ba})tists  and  the  Quakers  they  professed  to 
act  upon  Scripture  authority.  I  will  not  pain  my  opponent  by 
a  recital  of  the  cruelties  of  these  people  tov.  ard  the  innocent  dis- 
senters from  their  creed — neither  will  I  be  so  illiberal  as  to  say 
tlrese  cruelties  were  the  legitimate  fruit  of  their  Religion.  No 
system  is  justly  chargeable  with  the  mal-conduct  of  its  profes- 
sors, unless  it  can  be  proved  that  such  mal-conduct  is  the  neces- 
sary consequences  of  that  system.  What  has  the  conduct  of  the 
Anabaptists  of  Munster  to  do  with  our  principles  ?  Certainly 
nothing  more  than  with  tliose  of  my  opponent  with  wliom  tliey 
agree  in  more  points  than  they  do  with  us  !  Stubnek  one 
of  their  founders  relied  upon  the  Scriptures  as  the  foundation  of 
their  doctrine.  The  practice  of  Muis  zer  bears  a  much  strong- 
er affinity  Lj  that  of  our  opposers,  than  to  ours.  He  stood  at 
the  head  of  an  army — We  disclaim  ail  wars — He  contended  for 
Cardinal  Ordinances  under  the  new  Covenant — We  reject  them 
all  as  being  abolished  by  the  unshadowv  Dispensation  of  Christ. 

AMICUS, 

Saturday,  J-jm  23,  iZzz. 

LETTER  XIX. 

ON  IXTERXAl  LIGHT. 

"  Beloved,  believe  not  every  Spiiit,  but  try  tJie  Spirits  whether  they 
are  of  God.^^    1  John  iv.  1. 

As  some  persons,  not  aware  of  the  tendency  of  your  doctrine 
of  Internal  Light,"  doubt  the  imporlance  of  the  present  ques- 
tion, before  proceeding  farther  in  my  arguments,  1  will  briefly 
mention  a  few  of  the  errors  in  doctrine  and  practice  which  it 
originates. 

1.  It  leads  you  to  deny  the  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Apostles, 
and  to  teach  that  Christians  now  arc  as  much  ins])ij'ed  as  Peter 
or  John.  2.  It  leads  you  to  ne^^lect  the  Scriptures  not  necessary 
t»)  a  knowledge  of  the  Divine  will.  5.  To  question  the  authen- 
ficitij  and  correct}fess  of  our  copy  of  the  Bible.  Hence  you  talk 
cf  its  having  been  made  canonical  by  Synods  and  Councils  ; 


209 


its  having  been  WTitteii — transcribed — copied — re-copied — 
translated — printed — re-printed  &c.'^  intimating  that  the  stream 
has  become  muddy  since  it  left  the  fountain  !  4.  Therefore  you 
take  great  liberties  with  the  Bible,  rejecting  some  of  it  as  not  in- 
spired, denying  to  it  its  proper  names  of  the  **  Gospel,"  '*  Revel- 
ation," **\vord  of  God,*'  calling  its  lively  oracles"  a  *•  dead 
letter,"  the  **  mere  words  of  John  and  Jude  ;"  You  misuse  its 
terms,  such  as  Baptism,  Lord's  Supper,  Justification,  Rigliteous- 
ness  of  Christ,  word  of  faitli,  preaching,  singing,  praying:  You 
reject  its  leading  doctrines  of  Total  Depravity,  Vicarious  Uighte- 
ousness.  Trinity,  Resurrection,  Everlasting  Punislunent, — all 
through  your  over- weaning  co  *fi(ience  in  internal  light, 

5.  It  leads  you  to  oppose  the  2ise  of  Divinely  appointed  means. 
It  leads  you  to  prefer  a  silent  waiting  to  vocal  Prayer,  Whereas 
God  has  appointed  the  external  ordinance  as  a  means  of  excit- 
ing in  our  hearts  aii  internal  spirit  of  supplication.  Our 
prayers  if  social  may  be  often  times  blessed  to  others  as  well  as 
ourselves.  It  is  the  Divine  plan  to  ni  n  e  our  spiritual^  through 
our  intellectual  and  hodilij  senses  ;  and  were  you  oftcner  engaged 
in  outward  prayer  in  the  Sanctuary,  in  yoar  families  and  i.i  So- 
cieties, you  would  probably  do  more  good  to  others,  and  receive 
no  less  blessing  for  yourselves  than  on  your  pi'esent  plan. 
Preaching  is  another  Divinely  appointed  means  which  your  doc- 
trine leads  you  to  neglect.  Tiie  Papists  iiold  tliat  the  efficacy 
of  the  sacrament  depends  on  the  **  intention"  or  piety  of  the  ad- 
ministrator. You  hold  an  equal  absurdity  in  supposing  that 
the  efficacy  of  preaching  depends  on  the  livelij  exercises  of  the 
preacher.  NVhereas  it. is  not  the  mhiister  tiiat  is  blessed  to  the 
edification  of  others,  but  theTro?*^  o/*  God,  or  the  doctrine  preach- 
ed. The  Apostle  rejoiced  that  **  Christ  was  preached,"  though 
ti*om  wicked  motives,  (Phil.  i.  18.)  because  he  knew  that  the 
"  preaching  of  Christ"  (not  the  preacher)  was  the  means  of  sal- 
vation. The  Apostle  Paul  never  (that  1  read  of)  lield  a  silent 
meeting,  or  refused  to  preach  wiien  called  on,  or  when  people 
were  assembled  to  hear.  But  you,  preferring  an  imaginary 
light  to  Apostolic  precept  and  example,  preach  only  when  you 
feel  like  it.  Singing  is  anotlier  means  of  grace  which  the  Scrip- 
tures appoint,  and  internal  light  rejects.  Col.  iii.  16. — teach- 
ing and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spir- 
itual songs,  making  melody  in  your  hearts  unto  the  Lord." 
Here  the  Apostle  advises  to  sing  not  only  **  in  their  hearts," 
but  aloud  tiiat  they  miglit  profit  others. 

Baptism  and  the  Lord^s  Supper  are  also  means  appointed  to 
exhibit  truth,  and  thereby  enlighten  the  mind  and  move  the 
heart. 

The  Sabbath  also  was  ordained  as  an  external  means  of  calif 
27 


210 


ing  off  our  minds  from  the  world  to  meditation,  prayer  and  wor- 
ship. But  the  abundance  of  your  internal  light  sets  them  aside. 
Christian  Conversation  is  another  means  of  benefitting  our  fel- 
low creatures  which  you  neglect.  Exhort  one  another  daily," 
is  the  Divine  Command  ;  *' wait  till  the  Spirit  moves"  is  yours. 

6,  To  this  doctrine  may  be  traced  your  opposition  to  Bible 
and  Missionary  Societies,  You  are  not  anxious  to  circulate  the 
Bible,  because  you  do  not  think  it  necessary,  as  the  heatljen  have 
already  stsvfficient  guide  in  internal  light.  Accordingly  Dillivyn 
in  his  Reflections  page  173,  says  **  If  there  be  not  in  all  men  a 
capacity  (internal  light)  for  receiving  the  glad  tidings  of  the 
gospel,  missions  would  be  altogether  absurd;  and  if  such  a  ca- 
pacity is  confessed,  it  is  equally  absurd  to  suppose  it  may  not 
be  as  effectually  reached  by  the  immediate  ivjivence  of  Divine 
grace,  as  by  tlie  medium  of  any  instrnmental  labour."  Thus 
you  leave  Six  Hundred  Millions  of  your  fellow  creatures  in  igno- 
rance of  the  only  Name  under  Heaven  whereby  they  can  bo 
saved  !  For  how  shall  they  believe  or  hear  without  a  preach- 
er ?"  Rom.  X.  14.  Out  of  a  thousand  other  evils  resulting  from 
your  doctrine,  I  ^^ill  mention  but  one  more. — 7.  It  leads  you  to 
depreciate  the  Evil  of  Sin  and  tlic  value  of  the  Monement  of 
Christ,  Penitence  for  sin  and  gratitude  for  the  death  of  Christ 
appear  to  me  essential  evidences  of  piety.  But  I  find  neither  of 
these  in  your  writings.  Sermons  or  prayers.  In  **  Fothergill's 
Sermons,"  (a  volume  very  popular  among  you,)  I  have  looked 
in  vain  for  the  spirit  of  a  Penitent,  or  the  faith  of  a  Believer. 
In  Fothergill's  dying  exercises,  there  is  not  one  word  of  Christ  or 
of  confession  for  sin  I  The  volume  contains  five  long  prayers,  in 
tlie  last  four  of  which  there  is  but  one  sentence  oi'  confession  / 
They  are  made  up  of  Praise,  Thanksgiving  {not  for  Christ  how- 
ever) for  temporal  blessings  and  for  internal  light  and  petitions 
for  support  in  adversity, — just  such  prayers  as  an  honest  Deist 
would  offer  to  his  Creator  and  Preserver.  The  title  under 
which  you  generally  address  the  Deity  is  not  Redeemer,  but 

Creator,"  and  the  blessings  for  which  you  thank  him  are  not 
the  Atonement  and  Obedience  of  Christ,  nor  tlie  Scriptures,  but 
tlie  internal  light  he  lias  sent  into  your  hearts !  Now  when  we 
can  discover,  in  your  most  pious  men,  nothing  more  of  gospel 
doctrine  and  of  gospel  Spirit  than  this ;  and  when  it  is  evident 
all  this  evil  arises  from  the  substitution  of  internal  for  external 
light  as  a  Rule  of  Faith,  who  can  doubt  the  importance  of  the 
present  question  ? 

Other  Arguments — to  prove  tl.at  Internal  Light  is  not  a  suffi- 
cient, Universal  and  Divinely  appointed  Rule. 

14.  Because  there  are  places  on  the  earth  where  there  is  no 
spiritual  light.  Pro  v.  xxix.  18.  **  Where  there  is  no  vision 
the  people  perish."      Vision"  in  this,  place  must  mean  eithcp 


the  Scriptures  or  internal  light.  If  it  means  internal  light,  then 
internal  light  is  not  universal;  for  thei-e  are  i)laces  where 
there  is  no  vision."  If  it  means  the  Scriptures,  (as  it  probably 
does,)  then  it  shows  their  iviportance  and  absolute  necessity  ;  for 
without  them  the  people  perish/^  This  text  then  jiroves  two 
things,  that  light  is  not  universal,  and  tliat  the  Scriptures  are 
the  light  of  salvation,  without  which  people  perish. 

15.  Where  there  is  no  external  revelation  the  people  are  in 
darkness.  Ps.  74,  20.  **The  dark  places  of  the  earth  are  full  of 
the  habitations  of  cruelty."  Quere.  Why  are  some  places 
called  **fZarA:?"  If  you  say  because  they  have  no  internal 
light,"  you  sui-render  your  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  this 
light.  If  you  say  because  they  have  not  the  Bible  or  external 
light,"  you  acknowledge  that  w  itiiout  the  Bible  the  world  is  in 
darkness,  in  other  words,  that  the  Bible  is  our  Light  and  Rule. 

16.  It  is  represented  as  X\\q  peculiar  and  high  Privilege  oi 
'   Israel  to  have  the  revealed  will  of  God.  Deut.  iv.  7,  8.    **  What 

nation  is  there  so  great  that  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them  ?  And 
what  nation  is  there  so  great  that  hath  statutes  and  judgments 
so  righteous  as  all  this  law  which  I  set  before  you  this  day  ?" 
Ps.  Ixxxix.  15  :  Blessed  are  the  people  that  know  tiie  joyful 
sound."  Ps.  cxlix.  19,  20  :  He  sheweth  his  word  unto  Jacob, 
his  statutes  and  his  judgments  unto  Israel.  He  hath  not  dealt  so 
with  any  nation.'^  Rom.  iii.  1,2:  What  advantage  then 
hath  the  Jew  ?  Much  every  w^ay  ;  chiefly  because  unto  them  were 
committed  the  oracles  of  God.*'  These  texts  speak  unequivocally 
I    the  inestimable  value  of  the  Bible. 

17.  That  there  is  not  a  sufficient  light  in  every  man  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  some  really  think  tliey  are  right  w  hen  they  are 
fatally  wrong.  Prov.  xvi.  25  :  There  is  a  way  which  seemeth 
right  unto  a  man,  but  the  end  tliereof  are  the  ways  of  death.'' 

,  Now  if  as  you  say,  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is  universal,  and  its 
light  as  clear  as  when  the  sun  shines,"  liow^  happens  it  that 
any  man  mistakes  his  way  ?  Can  a  man  at  noon  day  think  he  is 
travelling  the  turnpike,  when  he  is  climbing  a  fence  or  crossing 

:  the  fields  ? — or  think  he  is  going  up  hill  when  he  is  going  down  ? 
Yet  Solomon  tells  us  there  are  men  who  really  think  they  are 

I  travelling  the  road  to  Heaven,  when  they  are  on  the  highway  to 
hell  !  How  shall  wc  reconcile  you  and  Solomon  ?  was  he  mis- 
taken ?  If  not,  yon  are ; — and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  sufficient, 
universal  internal  Guide.  It  is  an  ignis  (not  \^\ms")fatuus, — 
the  delusion  of  a  dream. 

18.  It  is  said  in  praise  of  Apollos  that  he  was  mighty  in  the 
Scriptures,''  and  that  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  showing 
by  the  Scriptures  (not  by  internal  light)  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,"  Acts  xviii.  24,  28  :  To  say  this  of  one  of  your  preach- 


212 


ers  would  be  considered  a  burlesque.  Ajmllos  or  you  therefore 
mis  be  roiig. 

19.  Our  Lord  referred  the  brethren  of  Dives,  not  to  internal 
light,  but  to  Moses  and  the  Propliets.  Luke  xvi.  29,  31. 
«  They  have  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  let  them  hear  them.  If 
they  hear  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  neither  would  they  be 
persuaded  though  one  arose  fi'om  the  dead."  Here  he  speaks  of 
Scripture  as  their  appointed  Guide,  and  exalts  its  testimony  above 
a  direct  communication  from  the  other  world. 

20.  Peter  speaks  of  Scripture  as  a  Guide  more  sureihajx  a  voice 
from  heaven.  2.  Pet.  i.  19.  We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of 
prophecy  unto  winch  ye  do  well  to  take  heed  until  the  day  dawn 
and  the  day  star  arise  in  your  hearts."  The  word  of  prophe- 
cy" in  this  verse  is  the  same  with  **prophecy  of  Scripture"  in  the 
next  verse  and  the  prophecy  which  holy  men  of  God  spake  as 
they  were  move(!  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  the  xilst  verse.  It 
does  not  mean  internal  light,  therefore,  (as  you  pretend)  but  the 
external  word,  to  wliich  if  we  give  earnest  heed  we  may,  in  due 
time,  hope  for  internal  light,  or  the  *'  rising  of  the  day  star  in  our 
hearts."  According  to  your  interpretation  we  must  give  heed 
to  internal  light,  until  internal  light  dawn  in  our  hearts;  i.  e, 
we  nmst  follow  a  light  before  we  have  it ! !  But  if  the  "  word  of 
prophecy"  here  means  the  Script/iire,  it  follows, — the  Scripture 
is  our  appointed  Guide, — a  sure  Guide — wliich  we  are  to  follow 
that  we  may  obtain  the  S}>irit. 

21.  The  Holy  Spirit  submits  IRs  own  influences  to  the  test  of 
Scripture  :  of  course  he  would  have  all  other  light  submit  to  the 
same  test.  1  John  iv.  1.  Beloved,  believe  not  every  Spirit, 
but  fry  the  Spirits  wljetlier  they  are  of  God.  Hereby  know  ye 
the  Spirit  of  God,  &c."  And  then,  in  the  3d  and  6th  verses,  gives 
two  written  rules  of  judgment.  Now  if  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  willing  to  be  tried  by  Scripture,  who  is  your  Spirit  that  he 
should  refuse?  Is  he  more  honorable  i\m\i  the  Almighty  ?  or  does 
such  a  scrutiny  make  him  afraid?  PAUL. 


Seventh-day^  2nd  Mo.  znd,  1822, 

LETTER  XXI. 

A  PROMINENT  charge,  brought  against  us  by  my  opponent,  is, 
that  we  **  dishonour  the  Scrij)tures."  A  charge,  which  if  sup- 
ported by  facts,  would  certainly  Justify  a  severe  rebuke — but 
whicli,  if  it  remain  unproved,  must  involve  the  accuser  in  the 
guilt  of  calumny.  Let  us  now  examine  tlie  evidence  adduced  to 
prove  the  truth  of  his  positicm. 

First.  He  says,    I  am  wilUng  to  believe  the  majority  of  your 


Society  agree,  that  the  Scriptures  were  written  under  the  guid- 
ance  of  the  word  or  spirit  of  god,  and  are  thei'efore  to  be  held 
in  high  esteem.^*  Now  I  would  ask,  how  can  it  **  dishonour  the 
Scri))turcs"  to  agree,  that  they  were  written  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? — I  cannot  conceive  how  we  could  honour  any 
\Vriting  with  a  higher  honour  ! — A  more  exalted  character  could 
not  ])ossibly  be  given  to  any  communication  either  from  men  or 
angels !  It  is  precisely  the  character  which  our  blessed  Lord 
a;ave  to  the  lAoctrine  which  he  preached.  **  My  doctrine  is  not 
mine,  but  his  that  sent  me."  John  vii.  16.  It  is  precisely  the 
character  which  the  Holy  Scriptures  give  of  themselves.  **No 
prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation,  for 
the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  (or  as  the  margin  has  it — at 
any  time)  by  the  Will  of  man,  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.-'  2  Pet.  i.  21.  To  affirm  that 
the  Scriptures  were  penned  under  Divine  influence — under  the 
guidance  of  the  word  or  spirit  of  god  is  to  grant  them  the 
most  transcendent  exrelh  nee !  It  is  the  **  ne  plus  lxtra"  of 
any  production,  whether  the  agent  be  a  mortal  or  an  angel  from 
Heaven ! — The  truth  is,  that  there  is  no  society  of  people  who 
can  possibly  hold  them  in  higher  estimation  than  we  do — unless 
they  pay  them  tliat  honour,  **  which  belongeth  to  God  only." 
Neither  is  there  any  Society  wlio  has  more  reason  to  esteem 
them — none,  as  I  conceive,  who  is  more  indebted  to  them,  for 
the  support  of  their  peculiar  doctrines,  than  the  Society  of 
Friends.  Whilst  on  many  important  points,  others  wholly  dis- 
regard their  direct  import,  and  by  means  of  the  weakest  so- 
phisms evade  the  force  of  the  plainest  Scripture  truths. — We  con- 
sider ourselves  bound,  in  all  cases,  to  act  consistently  with  the 
clear  testimonies  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles. 

Secondly.  My  opponent  says,  *'  You  take  from  them  every 
honourable  epithet."  Of  the  truth,  or  rather  the  falsity  of  this 
charge,  our  readers  may  judge  from  the  former  communications 
ef  **  x\micus,"  as  well  as  from  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  ap- 
proved authors  of  our  Religious  Society.  With  special  reference 
to  the  Inspiration  of  the  holy  men  wlio  wrote  them,  we  call  them 
*'t\\e  Holy  Scriptures."  With  reference  to  the  divine  truths  de- 
clared by  them.  We  call  them  **the  Scriptures  of  truth."  See 
Dan.  X.  21.  2  Tim.  iii.  15.  This  is  the  highest  character  thai 
any  of  the  inspired  penmen  give  them,  so  that  all  the  censure 
passed  upon  us,  for  not  calling  them  by  the  various  appellations 
which  my  opponent  is  pleased  to  give  them,  is  a  direct  censure 
of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  as  well  as  our  Lord  himself,  who 
never  gave  them  any  other  title  tlian  simply     the  Scriptures." 

**  Some  persons"  says  my  opponent  **  are  not  aware  of  the 
tendency  of  your  docti-ine  of  Internal  Light."  This  is  very  true, 
as  all  of  the  communications  of  *<  Paul"  addressed  to  us  sufficr 


n4 

eiitly  prove — he  is  not  aware  that  this  Internal  Light  leads  every 
experimental  witness  of  its  divine  efficacy,  into  gj-eatliiimility — 
into  an  entire  trust  and  dependance  upon  God  for  every  religious 
qualification.  It  appears  from  his  last  communication,  tliatthey 
.  who  reject  the  teaching,  the  leading,  and  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  can  preach,  and  pray,  and  sing  psalms,  and  sprinkle  their 
converts,  and  talk  on  religious  subjects,  just  when  they  please — 
^  in  a  word,  that  they  can  act  without  divine  influence — can  i-ctail 
their  notions  and  opinions  just  w/im  and  where  their  oivn  carnal 
Jieason  may  dictate.  In  this  they  clearly  manifest  the  wide  dif- 
ference between  them  and  the  divinely  commissioned  Apostles  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  If  any  man  speak"  said 
the  Apostle  **  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of  God."  In  this  sen- 
tence the  Apostle  alludes  to  the  oracle  of  the  sanctuary — the 
most  holij  place  wherein  the  ark  of  the  Covenant  was  deposited, 
where  from  between  the  Cherubims,  God  himself  gave  answers 
to  his  people  when  they  consulted  about  momentous  and  imj)ort- 
ant  matters, — See  1  Kings  v.  16.  If  any  speak  let  him  speak 
as  this  oracle ;"  that  is,  let  him  speak  as  the  Instrument  tlirough 
which  God  communicates  divine  counsel  to  his  people — let  hiin 
be  so  influenced  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  may  give  to  others,  not^ 
his  own  carnal  notions,  not  the  opinions  which  he  may  have  re- 
ceived in  Colleges  or  Theological  seminaries,  put  the  pure  coun- 
sel of  God — "  if  any  man  minister  let  him  do  it  as  of  tlie  ability 
which  God  giveth,"  not  which  mati  giveth,  not  which  his  educa- 
Hon  giveth,  but  wliich  the  Holy  Spirit  giveth.  This  and  this 
only  is  a  pure  Gospel  ministry,  let  the  dark  letter-learned  medler 
in  scripture  phrases,  say  what  he  may  to  the  contrary. 

That  this  was  the  ministi'y  of  the  primitive  church  is  manifest, 
from  many  parts  of  the  Apostolic  \Yritings.  **Now  we  have 
received  not  the  Spirit  of  the  world,"  not  that  Spirit  which 
makes  a  mock  of  divine  things,  which  treats  the  most  solemn  truths 
in  a  light  trifling  manner  * 'but  the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,  that  we 
might  know  the  things  tliat  are  freely  given  to  us  of  God."  Here 
the  Apostle  clearly  points  to  the  only  infallible  means  of  attain- 
ing the  true  and  saving  knowledge  of  the  things  of  God, 

Which  things  also  7ve  speak,  not  in  the  words  whicli  man^s  wis- 
dom teacheth,"  not  in  the  words  and  phrases  of  a  heathenish  di- 
vinity,  with  which  my  opponent's  communications  abound,  **but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  com]ydnn^  spiritual  things  with 
spiritual.  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  for  they  slvq  foolishness  unto  him,"  and,  there- 
lore  he  speaks  contemptuously  of  them — speaks  evil  of  those 
rhings  which  he  knows  not" — **  neither  can  he  know  them,  be- 
cause they  are  s])iritually  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii.  12.  Jude  10. 
*^Jfy  speech  and  my  preaching^*  says  the  divinely  illuminated 
Vpostle,     was  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom  hut  in 


215 


demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  of  power 1  Cor.  ii.  4.  Now,  I 
lay  it  down  as  an  incontrovertible  truth,  that  just  so  far  as  any 
ministry  resembles  the  ministry  here  described,  so  far  it  is  a  Gos- 
pel Ministry,  and  no  further,  let  those  who  contend  for  '*  Inter- 
nal darkness,"  assert  what  they  may  to  the  contrary. 

It  is  observable  in  my  opponentVs  last  Letter,  that  he  passes 
over  all  the  arguments  in  my  former  Essays  to  prove  the  reality 
and  nniversality  of  Divine  Internal  Light" — to  prove  its  snf- 
fciency  for  salvation  to  all  mankind — My  arguments  were  all 
drawn  from  clear  Scripture  tcstimon) — from  evidence  which  I 
consider  irrefutable — from  a  soui-ce  which  my  opponent  calls 
the  '*  supreme  and  only  standard  of  religious  truth."  As  he 
has  not  attempted  to  refute  them  by  his  own  standard,  I  shall 
consider  them  as  a  monument  of  the  truth  of  our  principles,  as 
well  as  an  evidence  that  the  tenets  of  my  opponent  are  unscrip- 
tural.  Instead  of  answering  my  arguments,  instead  of  keep- 
ing to  the  points  in  controversy,"  my  opponent  takes  a  course 
that  better  suits  his  purpose.  He  makes  a  great  number  of  weak 
or  groundless  charges,  and  leaves  them  unsupported  by  evi- 
dence. By  gratuitous  assertions  and  begging  the  questions  in  con- 
trovei'^y,  he  is  enabled  to  make  a  great  parade  of  consequences, 
which  no  more  result  from  our  principles  than  from  the  plainest 
Scripture  doctrines.  This  course  might  have  succeeded  some  four 
or  five  centuries  ago, when  a  blindfolded  priest-ridden  people,\N  ere 
persuaded  to  put  their  souls  under  the  care  of  a  selfsh  clergy,  who 
took  care  to  get  their  money,  but  cared  for  nothing  else.  But  it 
ought  to  be  remembered  that  we  live  in  other  times  I — in  times 
w  hen  many  are  not  only  disposed  to  seek  the  truth  for  themselves, 
but,  under  the  blessings  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  have 
grown  up  into  a  capacity  for  reflection,  and  a  maturity  of  judg- 
ment, which  will  secure  them  from  such  puerile  attempts  to  im- 
pose upon  them. 

I  am  much  mistaken,  if  on  religious  subjects,  my  opponent 
he  not  a  century  or  two  behind  many  of  his  cotemporaries — 
Calvin  who  lived  two  hundred  and  seventy  years  ago,  had  some 
views  on  the  subjects  now*  in  discussion,  which  prove,  that  he 
had  much  clearer  liglit  than  Paul" — which  furnish  evidence 
that  his  mind  was  illuminated  to  make  a  truer  estimate  of  the 
nature  and  effects  of  Divine  Internal  Light"  than  my  oppo- 
nent seems  capable  of  doing.  We  say,"  says  Calvin,  that 
**  wc  have  received  not  the  spirit  of  this  world,  but  the  spirit 
•*  which  is  of  God,  by  whose  teaching  we  know  those  things  that 
*^  are  given  us  of  God — the  Apostle  Paul  accounts  those  tlic 
'*  sons  of  God  w  ho  are  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  God — but  some 
**  will  have  the  children  of  God  actuated  by  their  own  spirits 
"  without  the  spirit  of  God.    He  will  have  us  call  God  Father, 

the  spirit  dictating  that  term  to  ns,  which  only  can  witness  to 


216 


^*  our  spirits  that  we  are  the  children  of  God,    These,  though 
they  cease  not  to  call  upon  God,  do  nevei-theless  dismiss  the 
^<  Spirit,  by  whose  guiding  he  is  rightly  to  be  called  upon — He  de- 
<^  nies  them  to  he  the  sons  of  God,  or  tlie  servants  of  Christ, 
who  are  not  led  by  his  spirit,  but  these  feign  a  Cliristianity 
that  needs  not  the  spirit  of  Christ ! — He  takes  away  the  hope 
of  a  blessed  resurrection  sinless  we  feel  the  spirit  residing  in 
^<  us,  but  theseiei^n  a  hope  without  any  such  feeling,''  See  Cal- 
vin, Inst.  Chap.  2. 

What  Calvin  has  said  of  some  who  in  Ms  own  time  feigned  a 
Christianity  that  needed  not  the  spirit,"  applies  with  equal  force 
to  all  modern  feigners  of  the  same  kind.  If  my  opponent  had 
had  as  much  light  as  Calvin  on  the  subject,  he  would  not  have 
written  to  us  against  a  doctrine,  which  is  the  peculiar  glory  of 
Chnstianity — a  doctrine  which  elevates  it  abo\  e  any  other  Reli- 
gion that  w  as  ever  promulgated  since  the  fall  of  our  first  parents 
from  their  paradisical  state.  His  essays  against  this  doctrine 
are  so  many  Witnesses,  commissioned  by  that  awful  Instrument, 
The  Press,"  to  go  down  to  posterity,  the  Evidences  of  his 
dark  and  carnal  state,  whilst  professing  to  be  a  Teaclier  of  tliat 
Religion  whose  peculiar  characteristic  is  **  Divine  internal 
Light."   [This  Letter  was  here  divided  in  the  Repository.] 

T@;—  

-  SalurJay,  Ffb.  9,  iBiz. 

LETTER  XX. 

ON  internal  light. 

any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles  of  god." 
1  Pet.  iv.  11. 

For  Amicus,  both  as  a  writer  and  as  a  man,  the  author  of  these 
Letters  entertains  an  unfeigned  esteem.  Towards  liim  and  to- 
\vards  the  other  members  of  your  Society,  whatever  you  may 
think,  he  feels  nothing  but  benevolence.  Of  the  piety  A'  some  of 
your  members,  I  do  not  permit  myself  to  doubt ;  but  your  far- 
famed  morality  I  attribute,  principally  to  your  rigid  discipline. 
To  the  intended  aspersions  and  insinuations  of  Amicus  against 
the  character  of  his  supposed  antagonist,  no  other  answer  need 
be  returned  than  a  quotation  \a  hich  I  iiope,  for  the  sake  of  him- 
self and  his  readers,  he  will  remember  :  As  I  shall  attack  no 
one's  person,  arraign  no  one's  motives,  but  simply  oppose  princi' 
pics  and  doctrines  ;  no  one  need  expect  me  to  notice  personal  in- 
vective,  hard  mimes,  suspected  motives,  nor  any  thing  but  sober  ar- 
guments.'' Letter  I.  For  your  doctrines  1  confess,  1  have  n  it 
the  least  partiality,  and  from  them  I  will  not  promise  to  withr 
hold  any  epithet  which  I  think  they  deserve. 


217 


1  liave  lately  been  struck  very  much  with  the  similarity  of  youi* 
doctrine  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures  to  that  of  the  Socinians.  Like 
them  you  profess  a, §:mif  respect  for  the  Bible,  but  make  little  use  of 
its  contents  farther  than  they  suit  your  purposes.  Like  them  you 
admit  a  degree  of  inspiration  and  Divine  guidance,  but  deny  a 
plenary  inspiration.  Like  them  you  set  up  a  standard  superior 
to  the  written  word  ;  they  idolize  Reason,  you  Internal  Light. 
They  deny  the  perfection  of  the  present  Canon;  so  do  you.  They 
are  always  prating  about  **  false  translations,"  various  read- 
ings," the  **  ignorance,"  **  prejudice"  and  mistakes"  of  the 
Apostles;  so  are  you.  They  reject  the  Mysteries  of  Scripture, 
the  Trinity,  the  Atonement,  Everlasting  Punisliment,  at  least 
they  say  nothing  on  tliese  subjects ;  so  do  you.  (There  is 
every  reason  to  fear  you  agree  with  tliem  in  the  doctrine  of 
Univei'sal  Salvation.  I  never  yet  saw  or  heard  a  sentiment  in 
your  Books  or  Sermons  which  implied  your  belief  in  eternal  con- 
demnation. And  I  call  upon  Amicus  to  avow  your  sentiments 
on  this  important  subject.  /  challenge  him  to  deny  the  cJiarge 
contained  in  this  parenthesis.) 

In  my  last  communication,  besides  bringing  twenty-one  Ar- 
guments against  your  doctrine  of  Internal  liglit,  (but  one  of 
which  has  Amicus  even  essayed  to  answer,)  I  showed  the  ten- 
dency of  your  doctrine  in  six  particulars.  With  this  statement 
your  advocate  finds  great  fault,  and  yet  not  a  single  charge  does 
he  explicitly  deny  !  In  the  first  place,  I  asserted  that  it  led  you 
to  deny  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  attri^ 
hute  as  much  inspiration  to  Chnstians  now  as  to  Peter  and  JohnJ*^ 
He  rejects  the  word  "  plenary"  as  unscriptural,  and  substitutes 
the  equivocal  word  '*  sufficient;"  but  with  regard  to  the  latter 
clause,  says  not  a  word  !  Is  not  this  a  tacit  admission  of  its 
truth  ?  Again  ;  I  charged  you  with  neglecting  the  Bible  as  not 
necessary  to  a  knowledge  of  the  will  of  God."  He  says,  as  the 
Socinians  also  do,  we  do  not  neglect  the  Scriptures,  we  have  a 
high  respect  for  the  Bible,  and  inculcate  its  perusal  on  our  peo- 
ple ;  but  lie  does  not  say  they  are  necessary  to  a  knowledge  of 
the  will  of  God.  The  third  charge  of  questioning  the  authefii- 
ticity  and  correctness  of  our  present  Bible"  he  does  not  touch,  be- 
cause it  cannot  be  denied.  Again  ;  I  charged  you  with  denying 
to  the  Bible  the  names  of  the  **  Gospel,"  '*  Revelation,"  **Wortl 
of  God;"  and  Amicus  admits  you  give  them  no  higlier  title  than 
the  *•  Holy  Scriptures,"  and  *'  Scriptures  of  truth."  The  charge 
of  rejecting  some  part  of  the  Bible  as  ?iot  inspired,  he  does  not 
deny.  The  charge  of  denying  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  wit.  Total  Depravity,  Vicarious  Righteousness,  Trijii- 
ty,  Resurrection,  Everlasting  Punishment  he  answers  by  call- 
'ing  them  **  heathenish  divinity  ! ! !" 

28 


218 


Yet,  gentle  reader,  this  is  the  very  man  who  after  fearing 
explicitly  to  deny  a  single  charge,  and  after  leaving  twenty  of 
my  arguments  unanswered,  can  accuse  me  of  making  ground- 
less charges,"  and  not  answeiing  two  or  three  of  his  last  objec- 
tions !  Whether  I  have  not  generally  taken  all  suitable  notice 
of  his  arguments,  and  answered  them  effectually,  let  the  public 
judge.  Nothing  but  want  of  room  prevented  my  answering 
those  to  which  with  such  confidence  he  refers.  Reader,  here 
they  are. 

Obj.  1.  "  In  opposing  tlie  doctrine  Internal  lights  you  op- 
pose the  Holy  Spirit,  the  two  being  one  and  the  same."  (This 
is  a  general  objection  running  through  the  whole  of  your  essays.) 
No  such  thing.  We  adore  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  acknowledge 
Him  as  our  only  Teacher;  we  oppose  what  you  call  ^'  Internal 
Light,"  as  a  Pretender,  Impostor  and  Usurper,  whom  your  So- 
ciety and  others  have  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  Spirit.  The 
Holy  Spirit  teaches  us  through  the  Scriptures  and  according  to 
their  plain  and  obvious  import ;  Internal  Light  teaches  you 
without  the  Scriptures,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence,  often 
against  the  Scriptures.  The  Holy  Spirit  commands  us  to  bring 
Internal  Light  to  the  bar  of  the  written  word ;  Internal  Light 
refuses  to  pass  the  ordeal.    They  are  by  no  means  the  same. 

Obj.  2.  Christ  promised  the  Holy  Spirit  to  his  disciples  to 
teach  them  all  things."  John  xiv.  26.  True,  and  the  promises 
extend  to  us  as  well  as  to  the  Apostles,  but  in  a  very  different 
sense.  As  the  Apostles  were  to  lay  the  Foundation  of  the  gos- 
pel church  ; — to  make  many  new  revelations  and  utter  predic- 
tions of  events  for  centuries  to  come  ; — as  the  most  important 
truths  tliey  to  teach,  were  not  yet  committed  to  writings 

and  could  not  therefore  be  known  by  them  in  an  ordinary  way, — 
the  Spirit  was  promised  to  them  as  an  immediate,  extraordina* 
rij  and  independent  Teacher.  In  this  they  were  as  highly  exalted 
above  us,  or  above  common  Christians,  as  Isaiah,  Jeremiah  and 
Daniel  were  exalted  above  their  cotemporary  saints.  Moreover, 
as  the  Gentile  converts  (not  having  as  yet  a  written  gospel)  could 
not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  in  an  ordinary  way,  upon 
them  also  was  conferred  an  extraordinary  portion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Hence  gifts  of  Miracles,  Tongues,  Prophecy  were 
granted  to  many  besides  the  Apostles  in  that  day. 

But  since  all  that  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  taught,  has 
been  under  the  infallible  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  committed 
to  writing,  the  same  extraordinary  inspiration  is  no  longer  ne- 
cessary. We  need  only  the  common  illumination  of  the  Spirit 
to  show  us  the  trutli,  the  beauty  and  excellence  of  the  written 
word.  To  call  this  common  inftuence  Inspiration,"  is  belit- 
tling tlie  term  and  confoimding  what  is  ordinary  with  what  is 
extraordinary.    The  gifts  of  Tongues  and  Miracles  have  cpas- 


219 


»?d,  because,  since  Christianity  being  written,  can  address  us  in 
a  rational  way,  these  extraordinary  arguments  are  no  longer  ne- 
cessary. For  the  same  reason  Inspiration  has  ceased.  God 
is  economical  and  will  not  waste  his  power,  nor  work  a  miracle 
to  accomplish  what  may  be  accomplished  by  ordinary  means. 
The  Spirit  no  longer  acts  in  us  as  an  Independent  Teacher,  but 
instructs  us  instrumentally  through  his  written  word. 

But  has  not  every  Christian  "  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One 
to  teach  him  all  things — so  that  he  needcth  no  man  to  teach  him?" 
1  John  ii.  20,  27.  Certainly,  every  Christian  who  reads  the 
Scriptures  with  a  sincere  desire  to  know  the  truth,  has  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit  to  their  truth,  so  that  he  needs  no  man 
to  tell  him  "  this  is  the  word  of  God."  For  he  beholds  there 
the  Image  of  God  and  is  sure  that  they  came  from  God, — 
more  sure  than  any  mere  Philosopher  can  be,  when  he  looks  u])- 
on  the  heavens,  that  "  God  made  the  worlds."  And  this  will 
explain  some  of  your  favorite  texts  :  **Hethat  believeth  hath  the 
witness  in  himself" — If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men,  the 
witness  of  God  is  greater"  1  John  v.  9.  10.  Thus  our  Loi*d's 
promise  to  send  the  Spirit  is  fulfilled  without  putting  ourselves 
on  a  par  with  the  Apostles  in  point  of  inspiration,  or  making 
internal  light  our  rule. 

Obj.  3.  "  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  had  not  the  Scriptures, 
yet  had  an  infallible  rule."  Should  we  grant  they  had  an  ex- 
traordinary portion  of  the  spirit  it  would  not  follow  that  we  are 
to  expect  the  same,  and  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  our  rule  ; 
because  before  a  written  revelation  was  given  such  immediate 
instruction  was  more  necessary  than  at  present.  But  the  whole 
argument  is  a  mere  quibble.  If  these  patriarchs  had  not  the 
Scriptures,  they  had  what  is  the  same  thing  external  revelation  : 
and  their  internal  light  was  in  exact  proportion.  The  first  light 
Adam  ever  had  of  a  way  of  salvation  was  the  external  promise. 
Gen.  iii.  15.  The  seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  ser- 
pent's head."  The  external  revelations  given  before  the  days  of 
Moses  were  the  only  rule  of  faith  in  those  days.  And  since 
they  have  been  embodied  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  the  Spirit  will 
never  be  at  the  trouble  of  revealing  them  again  I  And  the  same 
may  be  said  of  all  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  since  the  Spirit  has 
committed  them  to  writing,  he  will  reveal  them  no  more,  but 
gives  us  the  writing  as  a  substitute  for  immediate  inspiration. 
The  Patriarchs  had  a  rule  addressed  to  their  external  senses  as 
well  as  we. 

Obj.  4.  Salvation  is  attainable  without  the  Scriptures,  the 
Scriptures  therefore,  are  not  the  Rule  of  Faith."  Let  Amicus 
produce  one  instance  (except  Infants  and  Idiots  and  others  in- 
capable of  faith,  or  of  being  called  in  an  external  way)  of  a 
person  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  Clirist  without  an  acquaiu- 


220 


lance  with  external  revelation,  and  we  will  admit  the  force  of 
his  argument.    Till  then  we  shall  deny  the  fact.    Rom  x.  14. 

Ohj.  5.  You  leave  millions  of  mankind  in  a  most  pitiable 
state."  Granted.  We  leave  them  (doctrinally)  where  your  So- 
ciety would  (practically)  forever  leave  them, — without  the  light 
of  Revelation,  without  hope  and  without  God  in  the  world  ! — 

What  a  cruel  doctrine  is  this  !" — Is  that  argument  drawn  from 
Scripture^  or  from  feeling?  Declaim  as  loudly  as  you  please 
about  the  partiality,  cruelty  and  tyranny  of  God,"  all  this  is 
no  argument  with  those  who  make  the  Scripture  their  only  rule. 
Yours  is  an  argument  drawn  from  feeling  (or  internal  light)  in 
direct  contradiction  to  the  word  of  God.  You  set  up  your- 
selves as  .judges  what  it  is  right  and  ft  for  Almighty  God  to 
do:  thus  presuming  to  "re-judge  his  judgments,  be  the  God  of 
God  !"  In  regard  to  the  state  of  the  heathen,  you  set  up  your 
internal  light  against  both  Scripture  and  facts.  Facts  (some 
of  which  I  will  detail  hereafter)  show  that  the  state  of  the 
heathen  now  is  the  same  as  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
when  describing  their  character,  Paul  strings  twenty-three  vi- 
ces on  one  string,  (Rom.  i.  29,  31.)  And  the  nations  which  have 
not  the  Scriptures,  have  the  same  light  which  the  ancient  Ro- 
mans, Corinthians  and  Ephesians  had  before  the  Apostles  came, 
in  other  words,  they  are  **  without  Christ,  aliens  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise, 
having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world."  The  only 
spirit  that  works  in  them,  is  the  Prince  of  the  power  of  the  air, 
the  same  who  now  worketh  in  tlie  children  of  disobedience 
Eph.  ii.  2,  12.  All  tlie  light  they  have  is  the  light  of  Nature, 
Consrience  and  a  few  scattered  ray.s  of  external  revelation. — 

But  why  has  not  God  sent  them  the  Bible." — It  belongs  as 
much  to  you  as  to  iis  to  decide  that  question.  I  would  simply 
answer,  for  the  same  reason  that  he  did  not  provide  a  Saviour 
for  the  devils, — that  he  leaves  any  of  mankind  to  perish — that 
he  denies  the  heathen  science,  civilization  and  liberty, — because 
his  justice  does  not  require  him  to  bestow  any  blessing  upon  sin- 
ners, and  because  he  chooses  to  do  what  he  will  with  his  own  ; 
and  I  may  add,  because  he  works  by  means,  and  will  call  Chris- 
tenchmi  to  a  strict  account  for  not  having  long  ere  this  sent  the 
Bible  and  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 

Obj.  6.  *<If  any  man  s])eak  (preach)  let  him  speak  as  the 
oracles  of  God, — this  oracle  is  internal  light,  therefore  internal 
light  is  a  rule  for  preachers."  This  objection  refers  to  the  only 
one  of  all  my  arguments  which  Amicus  has  attempted  to  answer, 
and  the  awkwardness  of  his  answer  confirms  my  argument. 
"  Oracle"  (in  the  singular  number)  always  denotes  iho^  voice  of 
God  speaking  from  the  Temple  :  **  Oracles"  (])lural)  always  de-< 
note  the  things  spoken.    Thus  Stephen  speaking  of  the  fathers. 


221 


says  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us.^'  Acts  vii. 
38.  Pray,  how  could  Moses  and  the  Jewish  fathers  transmit 
the  Oracle"  or  voice  of  God  to  their  descendants !  But  any 
one  can  see  how  they  could  transmit  the  Oracles"  or  things 
spoken,  to  wit,  by  writing.  Two  things  then  are  taught  in  this 
text  of  Peter,  ^*  If  any  man  speak,  let  him  speak  as  the  oracles 
6f  God,"  first,  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  a  dead  letter"  but 
the  Lively  Oracles  of  God ;  and  secondly,  that  all  Preachers 
instead  of  following  any  internal  light,  should  make  the  written 
word  of  God  their  Rule.  PAUL. 

LETTER  XXL--^Continued  from  page  212. 

I  will  now  notice  some  of  Paul's  assertions  respecting  the 
tendency  of  this  doctrine.  1st.  He  says,  It  leads  you  to  de- 
ny tlie  plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Apostles."  What  he  means 
by  tliis  umcriptural  term  he  has  not  explained  to  us.  But  we 
believe  that  the  Apostles  were  fully  and  snfficvently  inspired  to 
record  the  great  and  all-important  truths  of  Christianity  ;  and 
that  they  did  so  record  them  to  the  comfort  and  confirmation  of 
their  successors  in  the  Christian  faith.  As  we  acknowledge 
that  they  wrote  under  '^the  guidance  of  the  Word  or  Spirit  of 
God,"  we  admit  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  the  Divine 
Inspiration  of  the  Apostles— My  opponent's  assertion  falls  to 
the  ground  of  course. 

2nd,  He  says,  It  leads  you  to  neglect  the  Scriptures  as  not 
necessary  to  a  knowledge  of  the  divine  will." — Now  I  affirm, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  never  led  any  one  to  neglect  the  Scriptures. 
I  am  sure  it  never  led  us  to  neglect  them — on  the  contrary  it 
has  led  us  to  search  them  diligently — to  peruse  them  carefully — 
to  practice  the  doctrines  they  record — and  what  is  more,  it  has  led 
the  Society,  as  a  religious  body,  to  recommend  and  enjoin  on  their 
individual  members  the  frequent  reading  of  tlie  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," and  every  meeting  regularly  constituted  by  the  Society, 
is  required  to  report  to  the  general  annual  meeting  of  Friends, 
whether  its  members  have  complied  with  this  injunction.  This 
will  be  I  think  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  false  cliarge  of  my 
opponent. 

3d.  It  leads  you  to  question  the  authenticity  and  cor- 
rectness of  oitr  copy  of  the  Bible,^'  What  he  means  by  "our  copy 
of  the  Bible,^^  he  has  not  explained.  If  he  mean  the  translation 
in  common  use  made  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  of  England,  1 
answer — That  this  translation  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  pei'fect- 
ly  correct  we  very  well  know.  And  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  original  copies  of  the  Bible  from  which  the  present 


222 


translation  was  made,  Avere  far  from  being  the  most  perfect. 
No  man  who  is  acquainted  with  the  original  tongues  and  who 
has  had  the  opportunity  of  comparing  our  present  version  with 
them,  and  with  above  three  hundred  ancient  manuscripts  which 
have  since  been  discovd^i^d,  should  dare  to  say  otiierwise. 
Robert  Barclay  the  celebrated  Apologist — a  man  who  was 
critically  skilled  in  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  Hebrew  languages, 
has  said,  that  "  divers  passages  in  the  common  translation 
are  corrupted  and  perverted,'^  This  sentiment  is  supported 
by  many  of  the  most  learned  and  judicious  Commentators 
since  his  time — it  is  a  sentiment  that  every  revolving  year  con- 
firms. Dr.  Blackwall  in  his  ^*  Sacred  classics"  when  speak- 
ing of  the  present  translation,  says  **  Inrmmerable  instances 
might  be  adduced  of  faulty  translations  of  tlie  Divine  Original, 
which  either  weaken  its  sense,  or,  debase  and  tarnish  the  beauty 
of  its  language  he  adds,  **No  man  can  be  so  superstitiously 
devoted  to  them,  but  he  must  own  that  a  considerable  number  of 
passages  are  weakly  and  imperfectly  translated,  and  not  a  few 
falsely  rendered.^^  Waterland,  Doddridge,  Wesley,  Wynne, 
Pilkington,  Purver,  Worsley,  Lowth,  Seeker,  Durell,  White, 
Kennicott,  Green,  Blany,  Geddes,  Symonds,  W^akefield,  New- 
come,  with  many  others  that  I  could  mention,  particularly  the 
present  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  whose  learning  has  rendered  him  one 
of  the  most  conspicuous  characters  of  the  present  age,  all  con- 
cur with  Dr.  Blackwall  in  the  principal  views  he  has  expressed 
on  this  subject.  Now  it  would  be  a  very  singular  property  of  Di- 
vine Light,  to  sanction  the  present  translation  in  those  passages*- 
where,  as  Dr.  Blackwall  has  affirmed,  the  Divine  Original 
is  falsely  rendered  !" — Yet  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  what  I  am 
sure  cannot  be  controverted,  that  no  Society  of  People  has  less 
referred,  in  disputed  points,  to  the  imperfection  of  the  present 
translation,  than  the  Society  of  Friends. 

But  what  has  a  just  regard  for  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  to  do 
with  the  present  translation  of  them  ?  Does  Christianity  or 
common  sense  impose  on  Christians  siich  a  regard  for  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  we  must  reverence  a  false  translation  of  any  part  of 
them  ?  that  we  must  submit  to  doctrines,  or  embrace  opinions, 
which  the  original  writers  never  held  ?  It  would  be  absurd  to 
affirm  it  ?  Nevertheless  we  believe,  that  even  in  tlie  present 
translation,  the  divine  truths  of  Christianity  are  so  fully  unfold- 
ed that  the  real  Christian  will  not  be  at  any  loss  to  discover  in 
it,  sufficient  to  co  ifirm  him  in  all  the  essentials  of  our  holy  faith : 
and  therefore  we  may  very  rationally  account  for  the  fact,  that 
there  is  no  Religious  Society  who  is  less  anxious  for  a  new  trans- 
lation of  the  Scriptures  tlian  the  Society  of  Friends.  For  my 
own  part  I  believe  that  all  the  doctrines  we  hold,  may,  on  the 
ground  of  fair  argument  and  rational  demonstration,  be  defend- 


223 


ed  and  confirmed  by  numerous  clear  unequivocal  passages,  in 
the  present  translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Now  if  Blackwall's  assertions  be  true — and  I  think  Paul" 
mil  not  venture  to  contradict  them — on  what  a  boundless  ocean 
and  without  a  compass  do  the  principles  of  my  opponent  leave 
us  ! — In  Letter  III.  lie  says  Now  suppose  a  word  or  clause  in 
a  prophecy  be  altered,  it  may  falsify  the  whole."  If  then  the 
alteration  of  a  word  or  clause  may  falsify  the  whole — if  many 
passages  be  falselij  rendered — If  Dr.  Mill  have  ascertained 
thirty  thousand  various  readings,  and  Welstein  more  than  a 
million" — how  can  we  possibly  know,  without  the  surer  evidence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  we  have  the  real  sentiments  of  the  in- 
spired penmen  ?    It  is  impossible  ! 

But  a  more  extensive  difficulty  arises,  and  must  ever  remain, 
on  my  opponent's  principles— Eusebius  informs  us,  and  we  have 
many  other  authorities  for  the  fact — that  several  of  the  Scrip- 
ture Books,  now  universally  received  as  canonical,  were  con- 
sidered doubtful  for  the  first  three  hundred  years  after  Christ 
— particularly  the  Epistle  of  James — the  second  of  Peter — the 
second  and  third  of  John — that  of  Jude,  and  the  Book  of  Re- 
velations. Cyril,  A.  D.  348,  rejected  the  Revelations,  as  did 
the  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  363.  Now,  without  a  divine 
"  immediate  Revelation"  how  can  we  ever  ascertain  w  hether 
the  ancients  were  right  in  rejecting  these  Books,  or  we  right 
in  receiving  them — Right  cannot  appertain  to  both.  Can  the 
Scriptures  inform  us  on  these  points  ?  Certainly  not.  How 
then  can  this  dark  cloud  of  uncertainty  be  dissipated  ?  I  an- 
swer, by,  and  only  by,  the  clear  inshining  of  that  light  which 
Jighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world ;"  or  as  the  late 
learned  and  enlightened  William  Jones  expressed  it  by  the 
Influence  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  clearing  up  our  judgments" — It 
was,  I  appreliend  on  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  Calvin  ex- 
pressed the  following  sentiment — Let  this  remain  a  firm  truth, 
that  he  only  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  persuaded,  can  repose  him- 
self on  the  Scriptures  with  a  true  certainty,'^  Inst.  Cap.  7.  lib  1. 
From  all  of  which  I  draw  the  following  argument — 

If  he  only  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  persuaded  can  re- 
pose himself  on  the  Scriptures  with  a  true  certainty" — If  only 
by  *Hhe  influence  of  God^s  Holy  Spirit  clearing  up  our  judg- 
ments" we  can  distinguish  between  the  inspired  Writings  and 
those  that  are  not  inspired — then  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Christian's 
only  divine  *<  Internal  Light"  is  his  primary  Rule  of  Faith — 
and  then  we  must  be  riglit  in  judging  of  the  authenticity  and 
correctness  of  any  copy  of  the  Bible  by  this  Rule, 

AMICUS. 


224 


Se'venth-dayy  zd  Mo.  i6,  1812. 

LETTER  XXII. 

The  Editor  having  thought  proper  to  divide  my  last  Essay, 
and  to  permit  my  Opponent  to  appear  between  the  fractions  of 
it^—I  will  postpone  the  further  discussion  of  the  present  import- 
ant subject  to  my  next  Essay,  and  proceed  to  notice  a  few  of 

Paul's"  remarks  in  his  last  address  to  us. 

It  appears  that  my  Opponent  has  taken  some  oifence  at  what 
he  deems  personality,  and  charges  me  with  the  indulgence  of 
myself  in  aspersions  and  insinuations  against  the  character  of 
my  supposed  antagonist" — If  I  know  any  thing  of  my  own  heart, 
I  am  sure  I  should  be  very  sorry  to  asperse  tlie  character  of  any 
individual  with  whom  I  am  acquainted,  and  I  should  be  still 
more  cautious  of  aspersing  one  with  whom  I  am  not  acquainted 
— As  to  personaliUj,  Paul"  may  rest  assured  I  have  used  none — 
Through  the  medium  of  his  Writings  I  know  him — through  any 
other  medium  I  have  no  desire  to  know  him.  He  has  shrouded 
himself  in  darkness ! — Without  telling  us  whether  he  is  a  Catho- 
lic, an  Episcopalian,  a  Baptist  or  a  Preshytenan — he  has  shot  his 
arrows  at  us  under  a  disguised  name — Either  through  ignorance 
or  by  design  he  has  misrepresented  us  in  a  great  number  of  in- 
stances, and  has  spared  no  pains  to  darken  our  character !— at 
one  time  we  are  atheistical — at  another  ddstical — sometimes  we 
are  like  the  Swedenborgians — then  like  Anabaptists — Sometimes 
he  is  ^'very  much  struck  with  our  similarity  to  the  Sodnians'* — 
then  to  the  Universalists — During  all  the  time  of  this  attack,  he 
is  closely  wrapped  in  the  mantle  of  obscurity  ! — There  let  him 
remain — Charity  forbids  to  strip  off  his  disguise,  and  Amicus 
intends  to  obey  her  mandate. 

I  have  said  that  "either  through  ignorance  or  design  he  has 
in  many  instances  misrepresented  us." — I  am  inclined  to  believe 
(what  charity  would  dictate)  that  "  Paul"  is  really  unacquaint- 
ed with  the  nature  and  tendency  of  our  leading  principle — If  it 
were  not  so,  I  should  be  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  he 
has  in  several  of  his  communications,  charged  us  with  errors, 
against  which,  we  have  uniformly  borne  testimony — these  char- 
ges, must  with  thousands  who  know  us  better,  directly  invali- 
date his  assertions,  and  render  all  his  evidence  suspicious.  In 
this  respect,  he  labours  effectually  to  defeat  his  own  cause. 
Who  has  ever  heard  that  Friends  "  set  up  Conscience  as  a 
Guiiic?"  Barclay  in  iiis  Apology,  Prop.  VI.  Sec.  16.  where  he 
defines  conscience,  expressly  refutes  this  idea. — Who  has  ever 
heard  that  Fi'iends  professed  to  believe  in  the  Universal  Salva- 
tion of  all  mankind  ?  I  am  no  stranger  to  tlieir  writings,  and  I 
can  truly  say,  I  never  saw  the  sentiment  in  any  acknowledged 
Writer  amongst  us.    For  our  scntimcjjts  on  this  subject^  let  lliti 


i 


225 


Reader  consult  the  Apology,  Prop.  VI.  Sec.  12.  In  conformity 
with  many  unef|uivocal  passages  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
we  admit,  yes  we  assert,  tliat  God  has,  in  his  infinite  mercy  and 
goodness,  made  Salvation  possible  to  every  rational  creature — 
that  **  a  measui'C  or  maiiitcstation  of  the  Spirit,"  as  the  Apostle 
declares  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal."  1  Cor.  xii.  7, 
hut  we  never  asserted  that  every  man  did  so  profit  hy  it  as 
thereby  to  become  an  heir  of  Salvation — because  many  have 
vohuitarily  rejected  tlie  teaching  of  this  Holy  Spirit,  and  in 
consequence  of  this  rejection,  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blinded 
their  eyes,  so  that  the  light  that  was  in  them  has  become  dark- 
ness, and  great  has  been  that  darkness /'^  Matt.  vi.  23.  xis  my 
Opponent  has  **  challenged  me  to  deny  that  we  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Universal  Salvation,"  I  will  now  challenge  him  to  produce  a 
single  passage  from  any  of  our  Writings  that  vindicates  that 
doctrine !! 

"  Paul"  boasts  of  having  brought  twenty  arguments  against 
our  doctrine  of  Internal  Light,"  and  asserts  tliat  I  have  only 
answered  one  of  them  !  Now  I  humbly  conceive  tliat  the  numer- 
ous Scripture  texts  which  I  adduced  to  prove  the  truth  of  our 
doctrine  in  this  particular,  none  of  which  *•  Paul"  has  attempted 
to  refute,  are  sufficient  to  nullify,  not  only  twenty  of  his  argu- 
ments, but  utterly  to  overtlirow  twenty  thousand  such  flimsy 
supporters  of  his  antiscriptural  scheme — That  one  text  of  the 
Evangelist  is  sufficient  to  settle  the  question  with  every  man 
who  sincerely  respects  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  humbly  submits 
his  judgment  to  the  clear  testimony  of  the  Inspired  Penmen. — 
**He  (John)  was  not  that  light,  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness  of 
that  light,  which  was  the  the  true  light  vvhicli  lightelh  every  man 
that  Cometh  into  the  world John  i.  Let  my  reader  consult 
this  passage  and  he  will  see  that  the  light  licre  spoken  of  was 
Christ  '*the  Word  of  God," — not  the  Scriptures.' — It  was  tliat 
same  Divine  principle,  that  all  powerful  Word  by  whom  the 
worlds  were  made,  **  and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made 
that  was  made."  John  i.  3.  It  was  that  same  Divine  principle 
of  whom  it  is  said,  In  him  was  Life  and  t!ie  Life  was  t^ik 
Light  or  Men."  It  was  that  same  Light  of  which  our  LorJ 
said,  **  I  am  the  Light  of  the  World,  he  tiiat  followeth  me  shall 
not  walk  in  darkness,  bu  shall  have  the  Light  of  L  .fe."  John 
viii.  12,  It  was  that  same  Light  of  which  He  again  said, 
"  While  ye  have  the  Light  belivve  in  the  Light  that  ye  may 
be  the  Children  of  the  Light.  John  xii.  35.  It  was  tlie  same 
Light  of  whom  it  was  predicted  that  he  should  be  '*  a  Light  to 
^lighten  the  Gentiles  and  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel."  Luke  ii. 
32.  It  is  that  same  Light  ol  whicii  it  is  said,  that  **  Goo  who 
commanded  the  Light  to  shine  out  of  darkness  hath  shined  in 
29 


226 


Qur  hearts  to  give  the  Light  of  tlie  knowledge  of  the  glory  of 
God  in  the  fare  (or  appearance)  of  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6. 
and  finally  it  was  the  same  Light  of  which  it  is  said,  **  All 
things  that  are  reproved  arc  made  manifest  hy  the  Light,  for 
whatsoever  doth  make  manifest  is  Light,  wherefore  he  saith, 
Awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  from  the  dead,  and  Christ 
shall  give  thee  Light.  Eph.  v.  13. 

Yet  gentle  reader,  tliis  is  the  hlessed  "  Internal  Light"  the 
glorious  Luminary  of  the  New  Covenant  Dispensation,  the  pe- 
culiar characteristic  of  the  Christian  Religion,  which  '*Paul" 
calls  an  Ignis  fatuus,"  a  delusion,"  a  **  cunningly  devised 
fahle,"     an  impostor,"     a  pretender,"  "  an  usurper  !" — 

Now  I  know  of  none  who  more  dishonour  the  Scriptures" 
than  those,  who  while  they  '*  say  many  fine  things  of  them," 
yet  who  at  the  same  time  i-eject  the  doctrines  which  they,  in  the 
clearest  maimer,  inculcate! — doctrines  which  are  not  only  ex- 
pressed in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  hut  which  are  written  as  with  a 
siinheam  on  the  fleshly  tahle  of  every  heart! — Where  is  the 
I'ational  creature  under  Heaven,  that  can  say  he  has  never  felt 
the  secret  influence  of  this  Divine  Internal  Light,"  reproving 
him  for  sin — approving  him  for  ohedience — strengthening  him 
in  virtue  ?  I  have  never  met  with  one !  and  I  helieve  I  shall 
never  find  such  an  one — **  a'  Kempis"  and  many  more  among 
the  Catholics  have  horne  ample  testimony  to  its  blessed  effects. 
— **  Calvin"  acknowledged  it — The  '*  Church  of  England,  with 
their  Holy  army  of  Martyrs,"  have  explicitly  proclaimed  it — 
Bunyan  and  Wesley  preaclied"  it — the  Hindoos  in  tiieir  Veda 
confess  it — and  the  Savages  (as  they  are  called)  of  North  Ameri- 
ca have  given  the  most  decided  testimony  to  its  eflicacy — in 
proof  of  wliicii,  I  have  at  hand  more  testimony  than  would  fill 
twenty  numbers  of  the  Christian  Repository. 

AMICUS. 

Saturday ^  Feb.  23, 1822. 

LETTER  XXI. 

ON  INTERNAL  LIGHT. 

We  are  not  as  many  who  corrupt  the  word  of  God, — handling 
the  word  of  God  deceiffully,  1  Cor.  ii.  17. — iv.  2. 

The  charge  of  holding  the  doctrine  of  Universal  Salvation, 
Amicus  does  not  dare  to  deny.  His  artful  management  to  avoid 
a  direct  answer,  must  have  betrayed  him  to  every  reader.^ 
Whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  be  tolerated  among  you  as 
to  the  duration  of  future  i)unishment,  you  all  agree  in  fixing  some 
limit  to  the  misery  of  the  wicked  in  anotlicr  world.  Whether 


you  hold  to  annihilation,  temporary  punishment,  or  no  punish- 
ment at  all,  you  do  not  believe  in  the  eternal  condemnation  of  anij 
sinner.  And  I  again  challenge  Amicus  to  deny  this  charge, — 
or  to  quote  from  your  standards  one  sentence  which  contradicts 
the  doctrine  of  the  final  salvation  of  all  men.  The  reason  of 
your  silence  on  this  suhject  (as  well  as  on  the  Trinity)  is  ob- 
vious ;  if  the  doctrine  of  Universal  Salvation  were  once  openly 
avowed^  all  Christians  would  at  once  disown  you  as  members  of 
the  Christian  church ;  whereas  by  your  silence  many  are 
deceived. 

As  I  foretold,  he  denies  the  authenticity  and  correctness  of  our 
copy  of  the  Bible.  First,  he  revives  the  stale  objection  of 
Hobbes,  Toland  and  Paine  and  other  infidels  against  the  Canon 
of  Scripture,  asserting  that  the  primitive  church  **  rejected" 
books  which  we  receive,  and  intimating  tliat  the  Epistle  of 
James,  the  second  of  Peter,  second  and  third  of  John,  Jude,  and 
the  Revelations  were  for  a  wliile  of  disputed  authenticity. 
Reader,  so  was  the  liesurrection  of  our  Lord  questioned  for  a 
while  by  some  of  the  disciples,  until  their  unbelief  was  put  to 
shame  by  overwhelming  evidence.  Just  so  with  a  few  of  the 
Epistles  of  the  New  Testament : — sucli  as  were  addressed  to  a 
particular  church,  as  the  Epistle  to  tlie  Romans,  Corinthians^ 
&c.  never  were  disputed  for  a  moment :  the  only  difference  of 
opinion  was  concerning  some  of  the  General  Epistles,  which  not 
being  directed  to  any  particular  churcli,  but  addressed  to  the 
church  at  large,  were  not  so  soon  authenticated.  Before  such 
authentication,  individuals  exercised  tlieir  own  judgment  in  re- 
gard to  these  Epistles,  some  acknowledging,  others  questioning 
their  Divine  authority.  Yet  Amicus  well  knows,  that  whatever 
doubt  and  differences  of  opinion  there  might  have  been  at  first, 
after  due  examination,  every  book  of  our  present  Canon  was 
unanimously  admitted  as  autlientic.  And  the  doubts  and  scruples 
and  jealousy  of  early  Christians  on  this  subject,  like  the  unbe- 
lief of  Thomas,  are  so  many  proofs  tliat  not  one  of  these  Epis- 
tles was  received  but  on  full  conviction  of  its  apostolic  a'id  Di- 
vine authority. 

To  say  that  the  Bible  depends  for  its  authenticity  on  the  de- 
crees of  Councils  is  a  gross  slander.  It  is  authenticated  in  the 
same  way  witli  the  writings  of  Ht)mer,  Herodotus,  Cicero, 
Cesar,  Bai'clay  or  William  Penn,  by  the  testimony  of  cotem- 
porary  witnesses  and  by  quotations  in  every  subsequent  age. 
Slioaid  a  book  now  appear  pu importing  to  be  the  work  of  William 
Penn,  of  which  none  of  your  Society  ever  before  liad  heard,  and 
which  contained  doctrines  inconsistent  witli  the  known  oi)inions 
of  tliat  good  man,  and  one  of  your  Yearly  Meetings  should  w  arn 
your  members  against  receiving  it  as  authentic,  would  this  be 
deciding  the  authenticity  of  Penn's  real  ivrilings? — Not  at  all; 


228 


their  authenticity  was  decided  before  you  were  born.  Sliould 
several  Epi^tl^^s,  purporting  to  be  from  your  Yearly  Meeting;  in 
London  to  the  Meeting  in  Philadelphia,  be  circulating  through 
this  country,  deceiving  your  members,  and  your  Meeting  iu 
Philadelphia,  after  discovering  the  forgery,  should  give  vrarning 
to  vour  people,  would  this  public  notice  constitute  the  only  evi- 
dence on  which  the  authenticity  of  your  genuine  annual  Epistles 
is  founded  ?  Not  at  all.  The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  from 
Londc/n  in  1810  does  not  de])end  on  any  decree  or  judgment  yon 
may  hereafter  pass.  Neither  did  the  genuineness  of  the  Apos- 
tolical epistles  depend  on  subsequent  decrees  of  councils  (though 
these  are  a  confirmatory  evidence.)  and  such  decrees  of  councils 
would  never  have  been  expressed,  had  it  not  been  forsome/oZse 
Epistles  which  wicked  men  would  have  palmed  upon  the  world. 
I  receive  the  Bible,  therefore,  as  authentic,  just  as  I  receive  the 
works  of  Barclay  or  of  Penn,  not  by  *'  immediate  revelation," 
but  by  a  ti'ain  of  historical  evidence.  The  authenticity  of  Paul's 
E])istles  depends  as  much  on  the  decisions  of  Councils,  as  the 
authenticit)  of  Barclay's  Apology  depends  on  the  decision  of 
your  Yearly  Meeting  and  no  more ! 

But  says  Amicus,  *•  many  passages  are /aMt(  rendered." 
Reader,  no  human  work  is  absolutely  perfect,  and  therefore  time 
has  discovered  a  few  unimportant  inaccuracies  in  our  present 
translation ; — in  one  out  of  a  thousand  verses  some  little  word 
might  be  altei-ed  for  the  better.  But  it  was  the  opinion  of  the 
learned  Selden  and  al  o  of  the  best  judges  of  modern  times, 
that  it  is  tiie  best  translut'on  in  the  world  and  renders  the  sense 
of  the  original  best."  Am\  it  is  certain  that  more  pains  was 
taken  with  our  translation  than  with  any  three  others  now 
extant. 

He  objects  to  tlie  correctness  of  our  present  Bible  also  on  ac- 
count of  the  Various  Readings"  of  the  Manuscripts  from 
\vhich  the  printed  edition  was  taken. 

Reader,  remember  the  large  size  of  the  Bible,  how  many  mil- 
lions of  times  it  had  been  copied  before  Printing  was  invented, 
and  what  a  constant  miracle  it  must  have  required  to  keep  out 
every  little  error.  Yet,  as  if  Providence  had  interposed  to  pre- 
serve what  it  once  gave,  the  difference  in  the  Manuscripts  is  of 
little  or  no  account !  In  the  few  copies  of  the  little  work  of  Ter- 
ence now  extant  there  are  more  and  greater  differences  of  read- 
ings than  in  all  the  Manuscrii)ts  of  the  Uible  now  in  the  world ! 

Thus,  Reader,  you  see  w  hither  this  '*  Internal  Light"  leads 
peoj)lo — even  to  bring  disrepect  and  contempt  upon  the  Bible ! — 
to  treat  it,  not  as  the  w  ord  of  God,  but  as  a  corruptetU  ill-authen- 
ticated, falsely  rendered^  uncertain  piece  o{ human  composition/ 

Though  Amicus  dar  not  iv»eet  my  arguments,  and  has  not  an- 
swered one  of  my  objections,  1  appeal  to  the  public,  if  I  have 


229 


not  taken  up  his  principal  objections  and  answered  them  specifi- 
cally. Two  only  remain,  and  these  I  have  left  so  h)n,^  unan- 
j  swered  that  the  public  misjht  perceive  what  stress  you  lay  upon 
them.  They  are  in  fact  the  pillars  of  your  system,  the  two  legs 
of  that  mighty  Colossus  under  which  you  sail  so  proudly.  The 
first  is  Jolm  i.  9.  That  was  the  true  light  which  lighteth  eve- 
ry man  that  cometh  into  the  world;"  and  1  Cor.  xii.  7.  **The 
manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit 
withal." 

As  to  the  latter,  it  was  never  intended  to  support  your  doc- 
trine; fori.  The  "manifestation"  here  spoken  of  was  some- 
thing of  which  the  Corinthians  were  destitute  until  after  they  be- 
came Christians  as  is  evident  from  the  2d  verse,  "  Ye  know 
that  ye  were  Gentiles  carried  away  to  these  dumb  idols  :"  As  if 
he  had  said,  **  Ye  are  Gentiles  (or  heathen)  no  longer,  but  are 
BOW  Christians  and  have  a  manifestation  of  whicli  in  your  heath- 
en state  you  were  destitute."  2.  The  Apostle  here  refers  not  to 
the  common  influences  of  the  Spirit,  but  to  those  divers  extraor- 
dinary gifts  with  which  the  church  was  favoured  in  that  day. 
As  is  evident  from  the  ensuing  verse,  For  to  one  is  given  the 
word  of  wisdom  ;  to  another,  the  word  of  knowledge;  to  anoth- 
er, faitli ;  to  another,  gifts  of  healing;  to  another,  working  of 
miracles ;  to  another  pi'ophecy ;  to  another,  discerning  of  spi- 
rits ;  to  another,  divers  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  another,  the  inter- 
pretation of  tongues ; — hut  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the 
self  same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he  will.  For 
as  the  body  is  one  and  has  many  members,  and  all  the  members, 
of  that  body,  being  many,  <^re  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ." 
From  this  it  is  evident  he  is  here  speaking  of  Christ's  *'body" 
tlie  churclu  and  not  of  the  whole  world,  and  every  man"  means 
no  more  than  every  member  of  the  church.  The  '^manifestation  of 
the  Spirit"  is  here  explained  to  mean  **  healing,  miracles,  dis- 
cerning spirits,  gifts  of  tongues,  ^c."  of  course  does  not  apply 
to  us,  much  less  to  all  mankind.  3.  The  simple  meaning  of  the 
text  is  •*  let  every  Christian  use  his  gifts  for  the  edification  of  oth- 
ers,'^  in  fact  is  the  same  with  1  Pet.  iv.  10,  As  every  man 
hath  received  the  gift,  so  let  him  minister  the  same  one  to  anoth- 
er." This  no  more  implies  that  all  mankind  have  received  spi- 
ritual gifts,  than  that  all  mankind  are  real  saints.  The  Apos- 
tle speaking  of  the  Day  of  Judgment,  says  *'then  shall  every 
man  have  praise  of  God."  1  Cor.  iv.  5.  Is  he  speaking  of  all 
mankindov  of  all  Christians  only  ^  4.  All  Scripture  teaches  that 
none  hit  Christians  have  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Ephesians,  be- 
fore their  conversion,  were  under  the  Prince  of  the  power  o! 
the  air,  the  Spirit  that  now  worketh  in  the  children  of  disohedi, 
ence."  Cliap.  ii.  2.  John,  addressing  the  disciples,  says,  **Great. 
er  is  He  that  is  in  you,  than  he  tliat  is  in  the  world."  1  John  iv. 


230 


4.  If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of 
his."  Rom.  viii.  2.  From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  all 
men  have  not  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  therefore  your  construction 
of  this  text  is  a  perversion  of  its  real  meaning. 

As  to  the  other  text,  John  i.  9.  "  That  was  the  true  Light 
which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  it  is  more 
plausible,  but  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  the  context  and 
with  other  Scripture,  cannot  support  your  doctrine.  The  Evan- 
gelist is  drawing  a  contrast  between  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus 
Christ.  Though  John  was  a  light,  a  "  burning  and  shining 
light,"  yet  he  was  not  to  be  compared  with  Jesus  Christ.  John 
was  a  liglit  for  a  short  time,  to  a  few  of  that  region  and  that 
generation,  but  Jesus  Christ  was  the  source  of  all  the  light  that 
ever  was  in  the  world.  He  is  the  Author  of  all  the  light,  whether 
physical,  intellectual,  moral  or  spiritual,  wliich  any  child  of 
Adam  ever  possessed.  But  in  what  way  he  enlightens,  whether 
by  Reason,  by  Conscience,  by  his  Spirit,  or  by  Scripture,  is  not 
said  ;  or  how  much  he  enlightens  any  man  or  every  man,  wheth- 
er he  enliglitens  all  equally,  or  sufficiently,  tliis  text  does  not 
state,  and  we  are  left  to  learn  from  other  Scriptures.  This  text 
teaches  no  more  than  that  He  is  the  source  of  all  the  light  there  is 
in  the  world, 

Obj.  When  he  is  called  the  "  Light  of  the  world,^^  does  not 
this  imply  that  he  enlightens  every  man  sufficiently  and  saving- 
ly No ;  in  Matt.  v.  14.  he  says  to  his  disciples,  Ye  are  the 
light  of  the  world,^^  Does  this  imply  that  Cliristians  afford  suf- 
fcient  and  saving  light  to  all  mankind  ?  Certainly  not.  He  only 
wishes  to  put  a  fiigh  emphasis  on  their  character  in  this  respect. 
Again,  he  says,  **  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,'^  Does  this  im- 
ply that  they  season  and  salt  every  individual  of  the  human  race  ? 
— or  does  it  specify  how  much  seasoning  they  communicate  to 
each  of  their  fellow  creatures  f — or  does  it  imply  that  they  sea- 
son every  individual  sufficiently?  Certainly  not. — Why  then  do 
you  lay  so  much  stress  upon  this  passage,  in  the  direct  face  of 
so  many  passages  which  speak  of  the  darkj)laces  of  the  earth," 
the  jdaces  *'  where  no  vision  is,"  and  where  of  course,  **  the 
people  perish,"  whose  times  are  "times  ignorance  whicli  God 
winks  at!"  Again,  John  iv.  42.  Christ  is  called  **  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,'-  This  as  much  implies  that  he  actually  saves  all 
mankind,  as  his  being  the  *«Light  of  the  world,"  implies  that  he 
actually  enlightens  cvei-y  indivi(hial  with  saving  light.  The 
meaning  of  tliese  passages  plainly  is,  that  he  is  the  only  Saviour 
and  the  only  Light  of  men.  So  that  this  mucli  abused  passage 
by  no  means  teaches  that  Christ  enlightens  all  mankind  with 
"  Internal  Light,"  thus  giving  them  a  guide  superior  to  the 
Scriptures. 

And  here  I  am  willing  to  rest  this  subject.    Much  more  maif 


be  said  on  both  sides,  but  the  public  has  seen  and  weighed  the 
leading  arguments  on  both  sides  of  this  question,  why  then  not 
pass  to  another  topic?  The  public  wish  to  know  your  sentiments 
on  the  subject  of  tlie  Trin  ity, — whether  you  are  Arians,  Sa- 
bellians  or  Socinians, — or  what  reason  you  have  for  omitting 
to  make  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  a  part  of  your  faith  ? 

PAUL. 

Se-ventk-dayy  zd.  M«.  2,  i8zi. 

LETTER  XXIII. 

Paul  commences  his  last  Address  by  saying  "  The  charge  of 
holding  the  doctrine  of  Universal  Salvation  Amicus  dare  not 
deny."  Now  I  thought  I  had  fully  denied  this  charge  when  I 
said  "we  never  asserted  that  every  man  did  so  profit  by  the  light 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  thereby  to  become  an  heir  of  Salvation." 
The  inference  is  clear,  if  a  man  become  not  an  heir  of  Salvation 
he  cannot  inherit  it — the  heir  only  can  become  possessed  of  the  In^ 
heritance.  Salvation  implies  a  being  saved  from  sin  and  its  con- 
sequent misery.  If  this  blessed  work  be  not  experienced,  be  not 
affected  in  this  life,  I  know  of  no  clear  passage  of  Scripture  that 
conveys  the  idea  that  it  can  be  effected  in  a  future  state.  To  be 
explicit  then,  I  do  positively  deny  that  "  we  hold  the  doctrine 
of  Universal  Salvation" — that  all  men  will  finally  be  saved.  In 
my  last  I  challenged  Paul"  to  produce  a  single  passage  from 
any  of  our  writings  that  vindicates  that  doctrine.  Tlie  proof 
•f  the  charge  rests  with  him. — No  man  is  bound  to  prove  a 
negative." — Paul"  being  the  accuser,  if  he  leave  his  accusa- 
tion without  clear  proof  he  must  stand  condemned  for  detraction. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  I  would  just  say,  that  if  Paul  would 
always  state  his  authorities  for  any  charge  he  may  have  to  make 
against  us,  he  miglit  save  himself  and  me  much  trouble,  and 
moreover  might  become  entitled  to  the  character  of  a  fair  oppo- 
nent, to  which  at  present  I  think  he  can  have  no  claim.  Facts 
alone  are  entitled  to  consideration. — Assertions  without  proof 
cannot  have  weight  with  a  discerning  public,  to  whom  our  prin- 
ciples are  on  many  points  so  well  known  that  any  misrepresenta- 
tion of  them  can  only  injure  the  character  of  him  who  misrepre- 
sents them.  But  *'Paul"  knows  that  it  is  easier  to  make  charges 
than  to  prove  them  ;  and  he  loves  to  travel  a  smooth  road. 

As  I  /orefoW"  says  Paul  **  Amicus  denies  the  authenticity 
and  correctness  of  our  copy  of  the  Bible."  Here  my  opponent 
claims  the  character  of  a  prophet  !  iVlthough  he  denies  **  Im- 
mediate Revelation"  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  prove  that  he  has 
had  the  advantage  of  it  in  tliis  instance.    In  Letter  XX.  he  has 


232 


attempted  to  answer  some  of  Amicus's"  arguments  wliicli  did 
not  appear  ujitil  one  week  afterwards !!! — In  tliat  address  he 
says  **  Amicus  rejects  the  word  plenary  as  unscriptural  and  suh- 
stitutes  t\\e  equivocal  word  sufficient/*  Now  I  did  not  publicly 
reject  the  word  "  plenary"  until  one  week  after  this  assertion 
of  Paul,"  nor  did  I  then  substitute  the  word  sufficient,'  but 
the  words  fully  and  sufficiently  J'*  Again  in  the  same  Number 
he  asserts  that  Amicus  says  we  do  not  neglect  the  Scriptures, 
we  Ijave  a  high  respect  for  the  Bible,  and  inculcate  its  perusal  on 
our  people."  Now  Amicus"  had  never  said  any  thing  like 
this,  until  a  week  after  the  publication  of  this  assertion  !!! 
From  this  statement  it  appears  that  Paul"  lias  (through  the 
favour  of  the  Editor)  had  access  to  my  manuscript  (the  very 
one  that  was,  subjected  to  dissection)  and  in  the  fervency  of  his 
zeal  has  betrayed  his  partial  friend  !  Now  if  I  have  any  just 
idea  of  the  obligations  of  an  Editor,  they  require  tliat  anony- 
mous manuscripts  sent  for  insertion  area  sacred  deposit  to  which 
no  man  should  have  access  but  the  Editor  and  his  com])ositors  ! 
A  violation  of  this  rule  has  enabled  my  opponent  to  appear  in 
the  character  of  "  a  prophet,** 

But  as  this  circumstance  is  not  connected  w:ith  the  argument 
of  the  present  question,  we  will  let  it  ])ass  with  a  bare  notice  of 
the  fact — a  fact  which  may  serve,  however,  to  shew  that  the 
predictive  powers  of  my  opponent  are  not  very  miraculous  !!! 

**Paul"  says  ^*  Amicus  denies  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible." 
This  assertion  is  without  proof!  I  have  never  denied  it.  Its 
authenticity  is  admitted  by  us  all !  The  question  is  not — wheth- 
er the  Bible  is  authentic  or  not — it  is,  "  By  what  means  has  it 
been  authenticated  ?" 

Let  us  now  see  how  my  opponent  answers  this  question. 
"  The  Bible  is  authenticated  in  the  same  way  with  the  writings 
of  Homer,  Herodotus,  Cicero,  Ceasar,  &c. — by  the  testimony 
of  cotemporary  witnesses,  and  by  quotations  in  every  subsequent 
age."  So  then,  the  authenticity  of  the  Bible  stands  upon  the 
same  evidence,  as  the  authenticity  of  Pagan  Writers  !!!  I  think 
my  opponent  need  not  hereafter  go  from  home  to  look  for 
those  who  **  dishonour  the  Scriptures  !"  To  rest  their  aw ^/^m- 
tidiy  and  consequently  their  divine  authority  on  the  ground 
i){  heathen  writers  is  to  dishonour  them  in  the  grossest  manner  !  If 
this  is  the  way  that  tlie  professed  friends  of  the  Scriptures  vindi- 
cate their  honour,  the  Christian  world  has  gi'cat  reason  to  say 
**  save  me  from  my  friends."  How  much  more  rational,  how 
much  more  dignified  is  the  view  of  Amicus  as  exjn-esscd  in  his 
last  essay  ?  Instead  of  resting  our  faith  on  the  sandy  foundation 
of  human  opinion — on  the  conllicting  testimony  of  weak  moi  tals, 
we  place  it  in  the  certain  evidence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  !  How 
^*  quotations  in  every  subsequent  age"  cm  authenticate  the 


Bible  ^*  Paul"  may  perhaps  be  able  to  explain.  If  a  quotation 
from  a  Book  can  authenticate  that  Book,  it  would  be  a  very  easy 
thing  to  authenticate  the  travels  of  Lemuel  Gulliver,  or  the  life 
and  adventures  of  Robinson  Crusoe. — Quotations  from  any  work 
can  only  shew  that  he  who  makes  the  quotation  received  it  as  au- 
thority— they  can  neither  prove  its  genuineness  nor  its  authenti- 
city, unless  indeed  the  quoter  were  infallible. 

**  To  say  that  the  Bible  dei)ends  for  its  authenticity  on  the 
decrees  of  Councils  is  a  gross  slander."  Very  true  Paul  !  But 
what  is  this  to  the  ])oint  f  Did  Amicus  ever  say  so  ?  Or,  did 
"  Paul"  only  wish  to  make  his  reader  think  he  did  ? — the  whole 
scope  of  my  essay  went  to  prove  a  very  different  ]»osition  :  e.  g. 
that  its  authenticity  de}^en(\e(\  upon  nothing  less  than  divine  evi- 
dence. But  if  it  be  a  gross  slander  to  say  that  the  Bible  depends 
for  its  authenticity  on  the  decrees  of  Councils,  what  kind  of 
slander  is  that  which  says,  it  is  authenticated  in  the  same  way 
with  Pagan  writings  ?" 

Now  from  Paul's"  former  essays  one  would  suppose  he 
would  have  treated  the  Councils  of  what  he  calls  the  Church 
of  Christ  for  one  thousand  three  hundred  years"  with  more  res- 
pect tlian  he  has  lately  done.  I  remember  he  once  quoted  a 
Council  of  sixty-six  Bishops  as  his  authority  for  his  Sprinkling 
system  !  and  was  much  offended  with  Amicus"  for  rejecting 
their  evidence.  Amicus"  has  always  had  a  very  low  opinion 
of  Synods  and  Conncils,  I  do  not  know  how  "Paul"  now^  stands 
affected  towards  Synods — but  it  appears  he  has  sadly  fallen  out 
w  ith  Cou7icils  ! 

In  his  last  essay  Paul  confounds  the  meaning  of  the  word 
^*  Genuine"  with  that  of  the  word  "Authentic" — the  late  Bishop 
of  Landaff*  has  clearly  demonstrated  their  difference.  A  genu- 
ine work  is  one  that  was  really  written  by  the  person  whose 
name  it  bears.  "  The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  from  London 
of  1810  does  not  depend  on  any  decree  or  judgment  you  may 
hereafter  pass."  True.  Its  "genuineness"  as  well  as  that  of 
every  other  work  depends  on  nothing  but  the  fact,  that  it  was 
written  by  its  supposed  author.  Now  I  hold  that  the  genuineness 
of  Scripture,  has  nothing  to  do  with  its  authenticity.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  would  be  entitled  to  the  same  authority 
— would  equally  claim  our  veneration  and  respect,  if  it  could  be 
proved,  that  the  Apostle  Paul  was  not  its  autlior,  as  if  it  could 
be 'clearly  shewn,  that  it  was  actually  written  by  this  great  and 
excellent  minister  of  Christ.  The  truth  and  divine  excellence 
of  this  Epistle  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  affected  by 
the  opinions  that  men  may  entertain  as  to  who  was  the  writer  of 
it.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  importance  who  may  assert  that  "  two 
30 


234 


and  two  make  four,"  or  who  may  say  that  tlie  angles  of  a 
triangle  are  equal  to  two  riglit  angles  neither  is  it  of  any  im- 
portance whether  we  helieve  with  Lardner,  Wetstein,  and  others, 
that  Paul  wrote  this  Epistle,  or  whether  we  believe  with  Grotius, 
Leclerc,  and  Michselis  that  it  was  written  by  some  other  per- 
son ! — The  learned  world  has  been  making  a  great  stir  about 
trifles! — Had  tliey  been  as  careful  to  test  its  excellence  by  the 
infallible  Touchstone  ol*  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  as  they  ha\e  been  to 
ascertain  who  wrote  it,  they  would  have  come  to  a  far  more 
satisfactory  result !  they  would  have  discovered  so  many  infal- 
lible evidences  of  Divine  Inspiration  in  this  Epistle,  as  would 
have  removed  every  doubt  of  its  divine  authenticity,  and  settled 
their  minds  in  a  holy  certainty  that  the  Author  whoever  he  might 
be,  was  under  **the  immediate  guidance  of  the  Word  or  Spirit 

or  GOD. 

From  what  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  it  must  be  evident, 
that  "  a  work  may  be  authentic  that  is  not  genuine,^^  As  the 
authenticity  o{  any  Scripture  book  does  not  depend  on  the  deci- 
sions of  Councils — neitlier  does  it  depend  upon  its  genuineness — 
it  depends  upon  the  evidence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  it  was  writ- 
ten under  the  influence  of  Divine  Inspiration.  We  are  not  sure 
that  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews !  We  never  can  be  in- 
fallibly cei'tain  on  this  point,  unless  it  be  sealed  on  our  minds  by 
the  Holy  Spirit — And  as  it  is  a  matter  of  no  importance,  wheth- 
er Paul  wrote  it,  or  whether  he  did  not  write  it,  1  suppose  we 
shall  never  know  who  was  the  real  author  of  it.  If  it  were 
written  by  Di\  ine  Inspiration  it  can  make  no  difference  to  us 
who  was  tlie  person  inspired  of  God  to  write  it.  Its  excellence, 
its  authority  solely  depends  on  tlie  (juestion — whether  it  be  the 
product  of  DiAine  Inspiration  or  not? — ^And  this  quevStion  can 
only  be  settled  by  the  evidence  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  witnessing  to 
our  Spirits  that  it  is  of  God — /  believe  it  was  written  by  the 
Apostle  Paul — Grotius^  Leclerc.  Micheelis  and  others^  who  had  far 
more  learning  than  Amicus  or  his  opponent,  believT-d  that  it  was 
not  written  by  Paul !  Now  if  the  divine  Truths  contained  in  this 
Epistle  be  sealed  on  our  minds  by  the  Holy  Spii-it,  what  need 
we  care  who  wrote  it  ? — Nothing  at  all !  It  is  a  matter  of  perfect 
indifference.  With  tlie  evidence  that  this  Epistle  was  wi'itten 
under  divine  direction  I  will  cheerfully  leave  my  opponent  to 
fight  with  Grotius,  Leclerc  and  Michselis  on  the  subject  of  its 
genuineness, 

Lrt  us  now  return  to  Paul"  and  view  him  struggling  under 
the  weight  of  Scriptui-e  evidence  adduced  by  **  Amicus"  to  prove 
ihQ  universality  and  divine  nature  of  th^t  blessed  **  Li£»;ht  that 
lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world — And  first, 


235 


where  he  undertakes  to  refute  the  Apostle  Paul,  1  Cor.  xii.  7. — 
The  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to  profit 
withal."  The  Apostle  in  this  Cliapter,  to  whicli  I  i*efer  the  read- 
er, shews,  first,  that  all  religious  qualifications  are  received, 
not  through  the  Scriptures,  hut  hy  the  Spirit — Secondly — that 
this  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man,  that  we  may,  through  its  divine 
efficacy  profit  in  the  way  of  salvation.  My  opponent  says  that 
every  man"  only  means  every  niemher  of  the  church  !  this  is 
taking  too  much  for  granted.  Neither  text  nor  context  warrant 
the  assertion  !  Tliat  tlie  true  Liglit,  like  the  luminary  of  day, 
shines  on  all,  is  certain,  hut  many  shut  themselves  in  the  dark — 
for  *'this  is  the  condemnation  that  Light  has  come  into  the  world 
and  men  loved  dai*kness  rather  than  Light,  because  their  deeds 
were  evil." 

This  **  ipse  dixit"  argument  of  my  opponent,  which  is  cmtra- 
ry  to  the  plain  words  of  the  text,  is  refuted  hy  the  same  Aposih^ 
to  Titus,  ii.  11.  where  he  says  '*  The  Grace  of  God  that  hring- 
'  eth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men,  teaching  us,  that  de- 
nying ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly, 
righteously,  and  Godly  in  this  present  world."  Here  tlie  Apos- 
tle shews  1st.  that  this  manifestation  of  tlie  Spirit,  is  of  God's 
free  mercy  to  the  soul — '*  the  Grace  of  God."  2d.  that  this  Grace 
is  saving  grace, — *•  it  bringeth  salvation,*' — 3d.  that  it  is  uni- 
versally manifested — it'' hath  appeared  to  all  men'* — and  4th. 
that  it  is  a  Teacher,  an  instructor  of  the  soul  in  the  things  neces- 
sary to  salvation — *•  teaching  us  that  denying  ungodliness  and 
woi'ldly  lusts  we  should  live  soberly,  righteously  and  Godly." 

Secondly.  AVhere  he  endeavours  to  refute  the  Evangelist, 
John  i.  9.  '*  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name  was 
John — the  same  came  for  a  Witness  to  bear  witness  to  the 
Light. — He  was  not  that  Light  but  was  sent  to  bear  witness  of 
that  Light  that  was  the  true  lAght  that  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world."  Now  my  opponent  says — '*  The  Evan- 
gelist is  here  drawing  a  contrast  between  John  and  Christ." 
Was  ever  any  assertion  so  untrue  ?  So  far  from  drawing  any 
contrast  between  two  lights,  he  here  positively  asserts  **  John 
was  not  that  Light"  but  mei*ely  a  witness  to  that  Light ! — 
•'Paul"  then  admits  that  Christ  is  "the  Author  of  all  Light." 
But  the  text  does  not  say,  that  "  Christ  is  "  the  author  of  Liglit." 
But  that  "  Christ  is  himself  the  Light.  My  opponent  then  says. 
"In  what  way  Christ  enlightens,  whether  by  Reason,  by  Con- 
vscience,  by  his  Spirit,  or  by  the  Scriptures  is  not  said  !  This  is 
just  such  an  assertion  as  we  niight  expect  from  an  honest  Deist." 
Now  I  think  the  Scriptures  do  very  clearly  tell  us  in  what  way 
enlightens  us.    "  For  God  who  commanded  the  Light  to 


236 

shine  out  of  darkness,  liatli  sliined  in  our  hearts.'*  2  Cor.  iv.  6. 
I  am  appreliensive  that  iny  opponent,  if  lie  be  not  more  guarded 
in  future,  w  ill  prove  himself  a  Champion  of  infidelity  instead  of 
an  advocate  for  the  Truth  of  Jesus. 

AMICUS. 


Saturday,  March  Pi  1922. 

LETTER  XXII. 

ON  INTERNAL  LIGHT. 

If  the  light  that  is  in  thee  he  darkness,  how  great  is  that  dark- 
ness/" Matt.  vi.  23. 

Amicus  has  become  quite  querulous  of  late.  If  we  may  judge 
from  his  late  Essays,  an<l  from  the  Notes  of  the  Editor,  he  is  ve- 
ry uneasij  and  anxious  for  some  excuse  to  leave  the  field  of  con- 
troversy. Trifles  area  vexation  to  some  men;  a  ''grasshop- 
per is  a  burden"  to  those  who  cannot  support  themselves.  Un- 
able to  answer  Paul's  arguments,  he  falls  to  quarrelling  with 
the  Editor  !  W  hether  this  be  a  sign  of  victory,  or  of  mortification 
the  public  will  readily  judge.  If  Amicus  from  a  visit  to  the 
Printing  Ofiice,  can  draw  any  new  argument  for  Internal  Light, 
I  beg  the  Editor  to  let  him  visit  it  every  day. — Any  thing  gen- 
tle reader,  to  turn  your  attention  from  the  main  question. 

Why  does  not  Amicus  give  a/air  and  honest  statement  of  your 
sentiments  on  the  subject  of  Future  Punishment!  Does  he  hold 
that  all  tlie  wicked  will  he  annihilated  ? — or  that  after  a  tempora- 
ry purgatory,  part  will  be  saved,  and  the  rest  blotted  from  exist- 
ence? Now  he  may  hold  either  of  these  sentiments  in  perfect 
consistency  with  all  that  he  has  said.  '*  AVe  have  never  asserted 
that  every  man  becomes  an  heir  of  salvation."  Ti-ue,  but  you 
never  teach  that  any  man  will  become  an  heir  of  eternal  damna- 
tion. "  If  the  work  of  salvation  be  not  effected  in  this  life,  / 
know  of  no  clear  passage  of  Scripture,  which  conveys  the  idea 
that  it  can  be  effected  in  a  future  state."  By  which  you  intimate 
that  there  are  some  passages,  not  very  clear  to  be  sure,  but  some 
w  hich  favour  the  idea  that  *'  salvation  will  be  effected  in  a  future 
state ;"  and  also,  that  there  is  no  clear  passage  against  such  a 
notion  ;  in  short  that  the  Bible  has  left  the  matter  doubtful ! !  A 
**  Quaker  answer"  has  long  been  proverbial  for  an  evasion,  I 
ask  again,  Does  Amicus  acimit,  or  do  your  standards  teach  the 
rTEKN.iL  misery  of  all  who  die  impenitent? 


2S7 


Except  the  .perversion  of  another  text  of  Scripture  there  is 
uotliingin  the  remainder  of  his  Essay  wortli  a  moment's  notice. 
In  Tit.  ii.  11.  12,  the  Apostle  aftei-exliorting  aged  men  and  aged 
women,  young  men  and  young  women,  descends  to  servants  and 
says,  **  Exhort  servants  to  he  obedient  unto  their  own  masters, — 
adorning  tlic  doctrine  of  God  their  Saviour  in  all  things;  for 
the  grace  of  God  which  hi'ingetli  sahation  hath  appeared  to  all 
men,  teaching  tliem  to  deny  ungodliness  and  look  for  the  blessed 
hope  of  the  glorious  appearing  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Je- 
sus Christ  ^cc.*'  As  if  he  had  said.  *'The  Gospel  makes  no  ex- 
ception of  any  class  of  men,  but  teaches  all  classes  of  men,  ser- 
vants as  well  as  masters,  poor  as  well  as  rich,  low  as  well  as 
high  to  deny  ungodliness,  &c." — The  idea  of  the  heathen  'book- 
ing for  the  coming  of  their  ^veixt  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'* 
of  whom  the  Apostle  says  they  **  cannot  hear  without  a  preach- 
er,'' is  too  extravagant  for  the  faith  of  any  sober  man. 

As  Amicus  seems  yet  unwilling  to  leave  this  subject,  and  as 
he  declines  answering  the  Twenty  Arguments  I  have  drawn 
from  the  Bible^  I  hope  he  will  be  willing  to  answer  the  following 
Questions  drawn  from  Facts  and  from  his  own  Experience. 

1.  If  it  be  true,  as  you  assert,  that  there  is  in  every  man, 
heathen  as  well  as  christian,  a  Light  ^^  hich  is  the  Fountain" 
of  tlie  Scriptures,  which  **  is  a  neater  and  surer  guide  of  con- 
science than  the  Scriptures,"  I  ask,  fFhy  have  the  heathen  world 
always  been  so  ignorant  of  God  and  divine  things  ?  The  Scriptures 
teacli  us  very  clearly  that  there  is  but  One  God  :  how  liapj)ens  it 
that  tlie  clearer  Light  of  which  you  speak  has  taught  every  heath- 
en nation  that  there  are  thonsands  of  gods?  The  Romans  it  is 
said  worshipped  three  tliousand,  the  Greeks  thirty  thousand,  the 
Egyptians  a  much  greater  number,  and  the  present  Hindoos,  ac- 
cording to  Gordon  Hall,  three  hundred  and  thii-ty  millions  of 
deities!  In  China  also,  they  worship  an  innumerable  multi- 
tude." Now  how  happens  it  that  this  clear  and  snperior  light, 
this  **  guide  to  all  truth,"  this  *•  Fountain  of  ligiit"  has  not  shown 
them  their  folly  ?  Or  are  they  right  and  we  wrongs — they  in  tlie 
light  and  we  in  darkness  ? — If  so,  let  us  throw  away  the  Bible 
which  only  misleads  us  and  go  back  to  the  liglit  of  heathenism  I 

Was  it  a  light  superior  to  the  Scriptures  that  taught  the  Egyp- 
tians to  worship  a  Bull,  a  Crocodile,  an  Ibis,  an  Onion? — that 
taught  the  Canaanites  to  worship  Moloch,  Belial  and  Beelze- 
bub ? — that  taught  the  Babylonians  to  worship  the  Sun,  Moon 
and  Stars  ? — and  the  whole  heathen  world,  to  **  change  the  glo- 
ry of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  image  made  like  tocorrui)ti- 
ble  man,  and  birds,  and  four  footed  beasts,  and  creeping  tli  ngs 
— to  change  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  w  orship  and  serve 


238 


the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  forever  ?" — 
Please  to  show  how  this  is  consistent  with  their  having  a  Light 
siiperiorto  the  Scriptures — with  their  having  a  nearer  and  sui*er 
guide"  than  the  Bible  ?  Please  to  show  that  what  the  Bible  calls 
"the  truth  of  God,"  is  a  lie,"  and  that  what  we  call  the  "lie" 
of  heathenism,  is  the  truth  ? 

We  wish  you  to  reconcile  "  Internal  Light"  with  the  Bible. 
Internal  Light,  says  the  heathen  deities,  are  proper  objects  of 
"Worship  :  the  Bible  says,  1  Cor.  x.  20  :  The  things  which  the 
Gentiles  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  Devils  and  not  to  God." 
Now  here  is  a  clashing  between  the  Bible  and  your  superior" 
light!  Again ;  Internal  Light  says  the  heathen  know  God  and 
call  upon  his  name,  and  woi-ship  him  as  acceptably  as  ourselves  : 
The  Bible  calls  all  nations  whiclv  are  without  the  light  of  Reve- 
lation the  heathen  that  have  not  known  Thee,  and  the  king- 
doms that  call  not  on  thy  name.^^  Psa.  Ixxix.  6.  Please  recon- 
cile this  great  discrepancy. — Again ;  if  tliere  be  in  all  men  a 
light  superior  to  the  Scriptures,  how  came  it  that  the  ancient 
Phenicians  and  Canaanites  offered  tlieir  children  to  Saturn  and 
Moloch  ?  How  comes  it  that  the  modern  Hindoos,  Sumatrians, 
and  South  Sea  Islanders  expose  and  sacrifice  their  aged  parents, 
their  sick  friends,  and  infant  children — burning  their  widows, 
and  devoting  themselves  beneath  the  wheels  of  Juggernaut  ? 
These  are  parts  of  their  religions  system !  Are  tliese  signs  of  su- 
perior light  ? — If  so,  let  us  turn  heathen,  for  we  have  none  of 
these  blessings  where  the  light  of  the  Bible  shines. — Say,  Friend, 
if  tiie  heathen  have  within  them  the  **  Fountain"  of  Light,  how 
is  this  consistent  with  such  notions  of  God  and  spiritual  things? 

2.  If  it  be  true,  as  you  assert,  that  the  Bible  is  so  inferior  to 
that  internal  light  which  the  heathen  possess  as  well  as  we,  how 
liappens  it  that  the  Bible  has  spread  such  light  wherever  it  has  come? 
If  an  "  Internal  Light"  superior  to  the  Scriptures  was  in  the 
Gentile  world  before  the  Jewish  Scriptures  were  made  known, 
how  happens  it  that  these  same  Scriptures  have  every  where 
changed  the  views  and  refined  the  religious  notions  of  meji  ?  In- 
ternal Light  (according  to  your  hypothesis)  prevailed  all  over 
the  Roman  Empire  before  the  Apostles  came  and  diffused  the 
light  of  the  Bible.  AVe  all  know  what  a  change  was  wrought  ; 
how  heathen  philosophy,  morality  and  religion  (all  falsely  so 
called)  fled  like  the  darkness  of  the  night  before  the  rising  sun  ! 
Now  if  the  Bible  was  only  a  "lesser  light,"  only  a  "stream" 
from  that  "  Fountain"  of  light  which  was  already  in  these  na- 
tions, how  liappened  it  that  the  former  eclipsed  the  latter  ?  Will 
the  rising  of  a  star,  or  of  the  moon  eclipse  the  noon  day  Sun  ? 
Has  the  "  stream"  proved  larger  than  the  "  Fountaiij  ?"  Will 


289  \ 

Amicus  please  fo  account  for  it  that  the  ^•  mere  words  of  John 
and  Peter  and  Jude,"  have  eclipsed  and  shamed  that  internal 
liglit  which  you  are  pleased  to  call     the  light  of  God  ?" 

A  few  centuries  after  this,  the  Bihle  was  withdraw  n,  was  hid 
in  a  dead  language,  and  by  prohibitory  statutes  kept  from  the 
knowledge  of  the  people.  This  sun,  as  it  were,  set,  and  **  In- 
ternal Light"  re-appeared  and  shone  w  ith  uninterrupted  beams, 
and  what  was  the  consequence  ?  Why  it  brought  on  w  hat  some 
people  (Quakers  too)  have  called  the  "dark  ages."  Please  ac- 
count for  this.  But  again,  at  the  Reformation  the  Bible  reap- 
pearedf  and  all  Christendom  welcomed  its  light,  as  those  who 
watch  for  tlie  morning,  welcome  the  rising  sun.  It  has  risen, 
and  as  it  climbs  its  way  upwards,  the  mists  and  fogs  of  Idolatry, 
Heresy,  and  Heathenism,  are  flying  before  it ; — and  if  you  had 
any  "  w  indows"  to  your  houses,  it  would  long  ere  this  have 
made  you  ashamed  of  the  light  of  your  **  candle.^' 

Why  are  the  lower  classes  of  people  in  Catholic  countries  sunk 
so  much  deeper  in  ignorance,  superstition  and  spiritual  barba- 
rism, than  the  same  class  in  Protestant  lands  ?  Why  are  tbe  poor 
inhabitants  of  Ireland,  Italy  and  Spain  so  much  less  enlightened 
and  pious,  than  the  poorer  classes  in  Switzerland,  Holland, 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States?  Is  it  not  because  the  one 
class  have  little  else  than  Intmial  Light,  the  other  have  the  Bible 
for  their  Light  and  Guide  ? 

After  Amicus  has  answered  these  questions  drawn  from  His* 
toi'ical  Facts,  (and  it  would  be  easy  to  multiply  the  same  to  an 
indefinite  extent,)  I  will  ask  a  question  draw  n  from  his  own  Ex- 
perience, 

3.  How  did  you  first  learn  that  there  is  an  Universal,  Divine, 
Sufficient,  Internal  Light  ?  Was  it  not  from  the  Bible  ?  or  from 
Quaker  books  ? — Answer  me,  how  do  you  know  you  have  such 
a  Light  ijourself  ?  Wliy  I  knorv  it ;  I  am  pei-fectly  conscious 
when  I  do  right  or  wrong.  I  know,  for  instance,  it  is  wrong  to 
swear,  to  lie,  to  steal,  and  right  to  repent  anti  be  a  Christian." 
True;  hut  how  came  ijou  by  this  light?  Can  you  make  your 
solemn  afiirmation  that  your  light  was  not  derived  from  the 
Bible,  or  from  some  external  teaching?  **  Yes,  it  is  independent 
of  all  external  teaching,  the  principle  was  implanted  in  me  im- 
mediately  from  God." — True,  conscience  is  as  much  a  faculty  of 
our  nature  as  reason,  but  neither  of  these  facilities  would  be  of 
any  use  witliout  external  training.  And  as  Reason  is  shaped 
and  perfected  by  outward  teaching,  so  Ls  Conscience, — w  hich  is 
the  true  name  for  your  Internal  Light.  God  gave  you,  as  he 
hath  given  every  man,  heathen  or  Christian,  a  cons(  ienct-,  and 
that  conscience  has  been  cultivated  by  parental  teaching,  read- 


240 


ing  the  Scriptures  and  preaching.  The  principles  of  the  Moral 
Law,  vour  conscience  might  liave  learned  from  reason  and  the 
light  of  nature,  but  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  no  man  ever  learned 
but  from  the  Bible,  And  I  challenge  Amicus  to  prove  be  has 
not  derived  all  his  knowledge  of  Christ  and  the  way  of  salvation 
from  tlie  Book  which  he  so  much  dishonours. 

Again.  I  might  ask,  granting  that  you  have  some  internal 
light,  how  do  you  know  that  that  light  is  sufficient  for  salvation  ? 

I  have  a  divine  witness  to  its  sufficiency."  How  do  you  know 
your  witness  is  dmii/'.^  "The  Scripture  tells  me  to  look  for 
such  a  Liglit."  Ah  !  then  your  light  is  not  sufficient  without 
the  Scriptures  after  all !  And  what  shall  the  poor  heathen  do, 
who  having  not  the  Bible,  do  not  know  that  there  is  such  a 
Guide  within  ? 

The  next  question  is,  granting  that  you  have  an  Internal 
Light,  and  that  it  is  sufficient  for  salvation,  liow  do  you  know 
that  this  light  is  given  to  all  ?  Have  you  conversed  personally 
with  all  mankind  ? — searched  every  heart  ?  How  then  do  you 
know  that  all  have  saving  light  ?  "  God  would  not  be  just  in 
denying  it  to  any."  How  do  you  knorw  he  would  not  be  just  ? 
"  Why,  I  have  always  believed  so."  But  how  came  you  to  be- 
lieve so  ?  I  was  taught  so,  the  Scriptures  tell  me  there  is 
such  a  Light  in  all."  So  then,  the  Scriptures  after  all  are  the 
source  of  your  light !  What  dishonest  dealing  is  this  !  Youi* 
oonscience  first  borrows  all  its  light  from  the  Bible,  and  then 
you  ungratefully  deny  your  obligations.  The  Scriptui^s  and 
Conscience  are  the  Sun  and  Moon  of  our  system  ;  and  the 
Moon  might  as  well  boast  against  the  Sun,  and  say  "  I  am  the 
Greater  Lights''  as  Conscience  or  Internal  Light  boast  itself 
against  the  Scriptures.  If  Amicus,  therefore,  will  continue 
this  subject,  I  wish  him  to  sJww  one  important  gospel  truth  which 
he  has  not  borrowed  from  the  Bible,  but  has  derived  immediately 
from  heaven, 

PAUL. 


241 


Sei-entk-day,  3d  Mi.  16,  lEzi. 

LETTER  XXIV. 

l!^  his  last,  Paul  seems  somewhat  discomposed,  because  1 
Gouhl  not  admit  his  claim  to  the  cliaracter  of  a  prophet,  and  is 
quite  aiigrv  that  the  ground  of  tnis  claim  was  laid  before  the 
public.  But  I  tliink  he  ought  not  to  be  angry  with  Amicus 
it  was  his  own  imprudence  that  betrayed  him.  Some  people 
ought  to  liave  good  memories,  a  defect  in  this  particular  often 
involves  them  in  difficulties.  When  a  man  is  detected  in  the 
commission  of  any  evil,  it  is  very  natural  to  blame  the  detector, 
but  it  is  more  reasonable  that  he  should  blame  himself — Ihe 
hlame  ous;ht  to  fall  on  the  cmninal,  not  on  him  who  brings  him 
into  public  view. 

**  Amicus"  acknowledges  Paurs"  kindness  in  giving  him 
the  liberty  of  going  to  t!)e  Printing  office  for  materials  to  defend 
-  his  cause — but  as  I  do  not  wish  to  appear  in  the  character  of  a 
prophet,  and  as  truth  needs  no  fictitious  aid,  I  tliinkit  is  not  very 
probable  that  1  shall  avail  myself  of  the  kindness  of  my  opponent 
on  this  occasion. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  "  main  question,"  and 
review  the  arguments  adduced  against  the  universality  of  the 
love  and  mercy  of  our  beneficent  Creator  to  his  rational  family. 
The  xVpostle  tells  us  expressly  that  **  the  Grace  of  God  hath 
appeared  to  all  men,**  Titus  ii.  11.    This  says  my  opponent  is 

as  if  he  had  said  the  Gospel  makes  no  exception  of  any  class- 
es of  men — servants  as  well  as  masters — poor  as  well  as  rich — 
low  as  well  as  high,  to  deny  ungodliness,  &c." — Very  well 
Paul — this  though  very  far  short  of  the  Apostle's  meaning,  and 
at  the  same  time  a  pei'version  of  the  text  may  be  accounted  a 
very  liberal  concession  I — a  concession  which  goes  to  overturn 
his  antiscriptural  scheme,  and  lays  waste  his  doctrine  that  tlie 
Scriptui'es  are  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  Gos- 
pel liiakes  no  exception  of  any  class  of  men,  servants  as  well  as 
masters/*  Now  if  sei^^ants  as  well  as  masters,  then  sei-vants  in 
•  China,  Birmah,  Hindostan,  Africa,  &c.  as  well  as  their  masters 
in  these  countries,  have  this  ♦*  grace  that  brings  salvation.'' 
'*  Poor  as  well  as  rick,**  Very  good  !  tiien  the  poor  Chinese — 
the  poor  Hindoo — the  poor  Birman — the  poor  African — as  be- 
longing to  tlie  poor  classes  must  have  this  grace  ;  and  as  divine 
mercy  goes  by  classes,  then  tiie  rich  classes  in  these  countries 
have  tins  saving  grace  too !  **  Lotv  as  well  as  hi:^h  /"  very  com- 
preiiensivc  !  tiien  tiie  low  classes  as  well  as  the  ni^h  classes  over 
this  wide  world  have  this  blessed  gift!  According  to  this  doc- 
31 


242 


trine  only  the  middle  classes  are  destitute  of  saving  grace  ! — this 
unhappy  doss  tl  en  must  be  the  reprobate  class  predestinated  from 
all  eternity  to  "eternal  misery." 

Mr  opponent  asks,  why  have  tlie  heathens  always  been  so  ig- 
norant of  God  and  divine  things,  if  it  be  true  that  there  is  in 
every  man  a  divine  light?  To  this  question  it  may  be  answered, 
that  the  heathen  world  have  not  been  so  ignorant  of  God  and 
divine  things,  as  '*  Paul"  supposes.  Many  of  them,  both  before 
and  since  the  Christian  era,  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  at- 
tained to  such  a  knowledge  of  God,  and  to  such  a  purity  of  life 
as  it  is  impossible  to  attain  by  any  outward  medium,  without 
the  powerful  influence  of  the  same  holy  Teacher.  The  time 
would  fail  me  to  quote  the  hundredth  pai't  of  the  testimony  that 
might  be  adduced  to  prove  this  j)osition.  I  will,  however,  ex- 
hibit a  few  cases  to  establish  it.  Marcus  At  relius  Antoni- 
nus said,  **  It  is  sulRcient  for  a  man  to  apply  himself  wholly, 
and  confine  all  his  thoughts  and  cares  to  tlie  2;uidance  of  that 
Spirit,  which  is  within  him,  and  truly  and  really  to  serve  Him  : 
for  even  the  least  things  ought  not  to  be  done  without  relation  to 
the  end,  and  the  end  of  the  reasonable  creature,  is  to  follow  and 
obey  Him." — In  the  perusal  of  this  passage  one  is  forcibi'  re- 
minded of  its  similarity  to  that  saying  of  the  Apostle  **  What- 
soever ye  do,  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God."  Again  says  Antoni- 
nus, "Without  relation  to  God  thou  shalt  never  perform  arigiit 
any  thing  human,  nor  on  the  other  side  any  thing  diN  ine" — a 
sentiment  truly  Christian ! — Thales,  a  Grecian  taiiglit  that 
God  was  without  beginning  or  end,  that  he  was  a  seai'chcr  of 
hearts,  that  he  saw  thoughts  as  well  as  actions — for  being  ask- 
ed of  one,  if  he  could  sin  and  hide  it  from  God,  he  answered  No, 
how  can  I,  when  he  that  thinks  evil  cannot  ?  How  consonant  to 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  God  is  this  ?  **  He  searcheth  the  hearts 
and  trieth  the  reins." — Pythagoras  taught  that  "there  is  noth- 
ing so  fearful  as  an  evil  conscience ;  that  men  should  believe 
in  GoOf  tliat  he  is — that  he  overlooketh  tlienj,  and  neglerteth 
them  not — that  there  is  no  being  nor  place  witltout  God."  It 
must,  I  think  be  evident  that  Pythagoras  taught  Sci'ipture  truths 
in  these  sentences,  truths  of  the  most  important  nature— the 
horrors  of  sin — the  providence  of  God  and  his  Omnipi-esence ! 
He  taught  also  that  men  should  not  in  Courts  of  Judicature  at- 
test any  thing  by  an  oath  or  ap])eal  to  God,  but  use  themselves 
so  to  s]>eak  as  that  they  may  be  believed  vvitho^it  an  oath  !  How 
consistent  this  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  "  Swear  not  at  all," 
and  with  that  of  the  Apostle  James,  "Above  all  things  my 
brethren,  swear  not,  neither  by  lieaven,  neither  by  the  earth, 
neither  by  any  other  oath."    Solon  taught  to  "  observe  honesty 


243 


ill  roiivcrsation  more  strictly  than  an  oath — to  fly  pleasure  iov 
it  brings  sorrow — to  meditate  on  serious  things,  ami  in  all  things 
to  take  counsel  of  God."  Chilon  taught  that  **  good  men  were 
different  from  bad  ones,  ill  that  their  hoi)es  ^^  ere  firm  and  assur- 
ed that  God  was  tlie  great  touclistone  or  rule  of  action."  Bias 
said  Make  profession  of  God  every  where,  and  impute  the 
good  tliat  thou  doest,  not  to  tliyself,  but  to  the  power  of  God.'* 
Aptaxagoras  taught  the  doctrine  of  One  Eternal  God,  deny- 
ing the  divinity  of  the  Sun,  Moon  and  Stars,  saying,  God  was 
infinite — not  confined  to  place — the  eternal,  elficient  cause  of  all 
things — the  Divine  Mind  and  Understanding."  Heraclitus 
had  great  and  clear  apprehensions  of  the  nature  and  power  of 
Gt)d,  maintaining  his  divinity  against  the  Idolatry  of  the  times; 

God,"  says  he,  **  is  not  made  with  hands — the  whole  world 
adorned  with  his  creatures  is  his  mansion-his  works  bear  witness 
of  him.  The  soul  is  something  divine,  if  my  body  be  overpressed 
with  disease,  it'^must  descend  to  the  place  ordained — however 
-  my  soul  shall  not  descend,  but  being  a  thing  immortal  it  shall 
ascend  on  higli  where  an  heavenly  mansion  sliall  receive  me." 

Fi*om  the  foregoing  authorities  it  clearly  appears  that  the 
heathens  have  not  been  so  ignorant  of  God  and  di^  ine  tilings,  as 
Paul  would  make  us  believe — tliese  were  the  men,  and  I  could 
easily  quote  examples  of  this  kind  from  otiier  heathen  nations, 
**  who  having  not  the  law,  became  a  law  unto  themselves,  shew- 
ing forth  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  the  heart,"  and  who 
shall  be  numbered  among  those  of  every  nation,  kindred,  tongue 
and  people,  whom  John  the  Divine,  in  the  vision  of  light  saw 
even  the  great  multitude,  which  no  man  could  number,  who  stood 
before  the  thix)ne  and  before  the  Lamb,  with  w  hite  robes  and 
palms  in  their  hands,  crying,  Salvation  to  our  God,  which 
sitteth  upon  the  throne  and  unto  tlie  Lamb."  Rev.  vii.  10. 

'•How  happens  it,"  says  Paul,  **  that  the  Bible  has  spread 
such  light  wherever  it  has  come !"  This  question  tliough  not 
couched  in  the  most  appropriate  terms,  may,  as  to  the  substance 
of  it,  be  easily  answered.  The  reason  then  that  light  has  been 
more  distinctly  felt  and  improved  where  the  Bible  has  come,  is 
this,  that  the  Bible  directs  and  e^  ery  where  presses  its  reader 
to  attend  to  that  divine  Internal  Light"  that  enlightens  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world." — lliis  Divine  Light  shines 
in  the  souls  of  all  men — the  only  cause  why  some  men  are  more 
benefitted  by  its  beams  than  others,  is  this — that  some  men  pay 
Diore  attention  to  it  than  others — •*  Clirist  is  the  true  light  that 
lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world" — but  what 
signifies  it  how  much  light  we  have,  if  we  do  not  legan:  it? 
Now  the  Scriptures  teach  us  to  ''walk  in  the  light  whilst  we 


244 


liavc  tlie  ligbt,  t'.iat  we  may  become  the  cliildren  of  the  light," 
consetjiiently,  where  tlie  Scriptures  have  been  received  as  the 
language  of  inspired  penmen,  those  who  tlius  receive  them  turn 
their  attention  to  this  divine  internal  and  blessed  liglit  of  tlie 
soul,  and  therefoi*e  they  become  divinely  enlightened,  or  iu 
Scripture  language  they  become     children  of  the  light." 

When  the  Bible  was  withdrawn,  the  times  succeeded  that 
were  called  the  darkai^es — and  so  called  by  some  of  the  Quakers 
too"' — very  true — But  not  because  the  Bible  was  withdrawn,  at 
least  not  solely  on  tliis  account — It  was  piincipalhj  because  a  cor- 
lupt  mercenary  priesthood  had  persuaded  the  people  to  turn  their 
eyes  from  Christ  the  light  of  the  world,  to  them,  the  dark  min- 
isters of  Antichrist !  thus  the  world  became  darkened — and  thus 
it  will  ever  be  whilst  like  causes  produce  like  effects — a  merce- 
nary priesthood  is  the  bane  of  Christianity — a  reproach  to  the 
Gospel — it  ever  has  and  ever  will  injure  the  most  glorious  cause 
that  ever  was  espoused  by  the  true  ministers  of  Christ — This 
will  fully  account  for  iUe  fad,  that  the  lo  ver  classes  in  Catho- 
lic countries  are  sunk  so  much  deeper  in  ignorance,  superstition 
and  spiritual  barbai'ism,  than  the  same  classes  in  Protestant  coun- 
tries." In  Protestant  countries  there  are  more  of  that  kind  of 
ministers,  who  ha  ing  "freely  received"  are  concerned  freely 
to  give,"  who  are  bound  to  direct  their  hearers  to  Christ  the  di- 
vine and  internal  liglit  of  all  God's  rational  family,  than  there 
are  in  Catholic  countries,  where  the  dark  hireling  has  so  much 
influence  that  he  excludes  the  free  ministry  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ." 

Paul"  thinks  it  a  powerful  argument  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  Apostle,  that  all  men  have  not  pi'ofited  by  **the  grace  of 
God  that  bringeth  salvation  and  which  hath  appeared  unto  all 
nien" — It  is,  however,  easy  to  see  that  this  argument  is  equally 
forcible  against  the  Scrij)tures  !  Have  all  men  that  have  heard  or 
I'ead  the  Scriptures  j)rofited  by  them  ?  **  The  heathens  are  great 
Idolaters,"  true,  they  are.  But  who  are  greater  Idolaters  than 
professed  Christians?  What  is  Idolatry?  Is  it  only  the  bow  ing 
down  to  sticks  and  stones  ?  Idolatry  is  the  loving  any  thing  more 
than  God  !  W  ho  then  are  greater  Idolaters  than  those  who  I'ead 
the  Scriptures  ?  How  many  Idols  are  worshipped  in  Christian 
countries?  They  are  innumerable!  We  need  not  reproach  the 
South  Sea  Islanders,  the  Chinese,  the  Birmans  or  the  Hindoos! 
If  any  man  love  any  thing  more  than  God,  that  thing  is  as  much 
his  Idol  as  Juggernaut  is  an  Idol  to  the  native  of  Hindostan  ! — 
And  what  ])eoj)le  0!i  earth  sacrifices  as  many  human  victims  to 
their  Idols  as  tiie  nominal  professors  of  Christianity  ?  The  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States  offer  up  3000  or  4000  victims  every  yem* 


245 


to  the  Idol  of  Sin'Htuous  Liquors  !  ! !  The  Christian  world,  as  it 
is  railed,  within  the  hist  thirtv  years,  has  sari  ificed  se\  e!-al  p.;iI- 
lions  of  men  to  tlie  Idol  of  War! ! !  And  tiiis  detestable  Iv.ol,  /ar 
worse  than  Juggernaut,  is  at  this  time  woi's]iij)j)ed  by  professed 
friends  of  tlie  Scriptures! ! !  Its  assistance  is  openly  implored  in 
the  public  Newspapers  as  a  means  of  sprea<ling  the  Bible!  I ! 

I  think  we  need  not  go  far  from  home  to  find  *'  the  dark  places 
of  the  Eartli." — It  is  doubtful  even  at  tliis  day,  whethei*  there  is 
a  nati(m  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  who  act  more  inconsistently 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  or  witli  tlie  clear  manifestations 
of  divine  light,  than  what  is  called  Christendom  ! 

Poor  blind  infatuated  man!  with  a  beam  in  his  Eye — and  his 
heart  elated  with  all  the  self-righteousness  of  a  genuine  Pharisee 
— ])utson  his  broad  phylacteries,  makes  long  prayers — pronoun- 
ces the  sentence  of  blessedness  on  himself — thanks  God  he  is  not 
as  other  men  are — and  after  a  gi'eat  display  of  pompous  religi- 
ous ceremonies  tliinks  he  has  done  God  great  service ! ! !  and 
then  to  cap  the  climax  of  absurdity,  sends  millions  of  his  fello\r 
creatures  to  eternal  pei'dition,  because  they  have  not  sinned 
against  all  the  mercy  that  God  has  affoi'ded  for  his  improvement 
and  salvation  !  ! ! — •*  Phoii  hypocrite  first  ca-t  tlie  beam  out  of 
thine  own  eye  and  then  through  the  blessed  means  of  that  divine 
internal  light  that  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world'' — thou  shalt  see  clearly  to  take  tlie  mote  out  of  thy  brotk* 
ei*-s  eve, 

AMICUS. 


246 


Saturday,  March  23,  ife-ii. 

LETTER  XXIII. 

ON  INTERNA!  LIGHT. 

For  after  thaU  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save 
them  that  believe,^'  1  Cor.  i.  21. 

It  appears  fronn  this  passage,  that  one  design  of  Divine  Pro- 
vidence in  leaving  the  Gentile  world  so  long  without  tlie  Scrip- 
tures, was  to  show  that  no  other  light  would  be  sufficient  for 
man's  Salvation.  After  four  thousand  years  experiment,  when 
it  was  clearly  seen  that  neither  Reason,  Conscience  nor  Tradi- 
tion, nor  all  combined  could  turn  men  from  idolatry  and  sin,  and 
thus  save  them  from  perdition,  it  pleased  God  to  send  forth  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  and  by  these  to  effect  what  all  other  light  had 
failed  to  accomplish.  Wherever  the  Bible  has  come — open  and 
gross  Idolatry  is  unknown,  one  only  God  is  acknowledged,  one 
Saviour  adored,  one  W  ay  of  Salvation  adopted.  W  herever  tlie 
Bible  is  not  known  all  the  darkness  of  idolatry,  superstition  and 
open  and  abominable  immoralities  prevail.  Go  through  the 
heathen  world,  and  you  will  not  find  one  man  who  worships  Je- 
hovah, one  who  is  not  either  an  idolater  or  an  atheist.  You  will 
not  find  a  single  preacher  of  Jesus  Christ,  nor  a  single  church 
erected  to  the  Triune  God.  Yet  Amicus  seems  to  think  it  "  a  ery 
doubtful"  whether  **  what  is  called  Christendom"  furnishes  more 
consistent  people  than  heathen  lands.  He  contends,  in  the  very 
face  of  the  passage  which  stands  at  the  head  of  this  letter  that 
the  world  by  their  wisdom  and  philosophy  did  know  God,  even 
before  the  foolishness  of  preaching"  was  heard,  or  the  Scrip- 
tures made  know^n  !  And  he  particularly  quotes  Thales,  Solon, 
Chilo,  Bias,  Anaxagoras,  Pythagoras,  and  Marcus  Aurelius  as 
persons  who  had  acquired  and  expressed  some  rational  notions 
of  the  Unity.  Omnipresence  and  Omniscience  of  the  Deity — no- 
tions which  he  thinks  they  could  not  have  acquired  without  **  In- 
ternal Light,"  or  an  immediate  revelation  from  heaven. 

In  answer,  I  would  Remark 

1.  Reason  or  the  Light  of  nature  may  teach  man  the  Existence, 
the  Unity  and  many  of  the  Perfections  of  God,  As  the  Apostle 
says  "  The  invisible  things  of  Him  are  clearly  seen,  being  ?m- 
der stood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  (or  works  of  Creation,)  even 
his  eternal  Power  and  Godhead."  Rom.  i.  20.  Now  had  these 
philosophers  any  more  knowledge  of  God  than  they  could  have 
derived  from  Reason? 

2.  The  faculty  of  Conscience  is  as  universal  as  the  faculty  of 


247 


Reason,  and  (like  Reason)  operates  in  all  in  proportion  to  its 
cultivation.  It  is  the  substance  of  the  Moral  or  Adamic  Law 
engraven  on  the  heart.  Thus  the  Apostle  says  "  The  Gentiles 
have  the  work  (or  substance,  or  import)  of  the  law  w^ntten  on 
their  hearts,  their  consciences  in  the  mean  time  accusing  or  else 
excusing  them."  Rom.  ii.  15.  Now  had  these  Philosophers  any 
deeper  sense  of  right  or  wrong  than  what  they  might  liave  de- 
rived from  this  natural  Monitor.^  Neither  Reason  nor  Consci- 
ence, however,  can  teach  om  gospel  truth,  or  give  the  least  hint 
of  a  way  of  salvation. 

3.  Many  of  the  early  Revelations  made  to  Adam,  Enoch,  Noah, 
&c.  were  handed  down  by  Tradition, — and  in  after  ages,  by  the 
frequent  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  some  know  ledge  of  the  Bible 
must  have  been  diffused  in  different  countries.  Now,  before 
Amicus  attributes  the  doctrines  of  these  heathen  Philosophers  to 

Internal  Light,"  or  an  immediate  revelation  from  the  Spirit  of 
God,  he  is  hound  to  prove  that  the  whole  of  their  knowledge  could 
not  have  been  derived  from  one  or  the  other  of  the  above  sources, 

4.  But  after  all  what  did  these  wisest  of  the  heathen  know  ? 
Thales,  Bias,  Chilo,  and  Solon  were  four  of  the  Seven  wise  men 
of  Greece,"  and  may  therefore  be  supposed  to  know  as  much, 
at  least,  as  any  of  their  cotemporaries.  But  what  did  tiiey 
know  ?  Put  all  their  wisdom  together  and  it  amounts  to  less 
than  mere  reason,  without  the  Scriptures,  can  now  demonstrate. 
A  Christian  school  boy  of  ten  years  old,  with  the  Bible  in  his 
hand,  could  teach  them  more  of  God  and  spiritual  truth  in  one 
sliort  hour  than  tliey  acquired  in  all  their  lives  !  Whatever 
they  might  say  of  one  Supreme  Being,  they  had  no  honorable 
ideas  of  him.  Their  Jupiter  was  a  limited  Monarch,  shackled 
by  a  parliament  of  other  gods,  who  often  liindercd  and  defeated 
his  purposes  !    Their  Tartarus  and  Elysium  were  corruptions 

ll  of  tradition,  and  were  prepared  not  for  all  mankind^  but  only 
I     for  the  ^rea^^i/ wicked  or  good.  \y\mtvv(}ri\\t\  thought, 

they  practised  Polytheism,  and  taught  it  in  their  writings.  They 
sent  people  to  the  Oracles  io  learn  their  duty,  and  laid  it  down  as 
a  fundamental  principle,  that  all  should  conform  to  the  religion  of 
their  country  !  They  taught  that  ii/in^  was  lawful  when  it  was 
profitable,  and  were  generally  unclean  and  immoral  in  their 
lives. 

Pythagoras  worshipped  the  gods  every  morning  at  an  early 
hour, — believed  in  tlie  metemjisycliosis  or  transmigration  of ^ 
souls;  and  lying,  said  he  remembered  to  have  inhabited  already 
the  bodies  of  four  different  persons  !  Jinaxagoras  held  that  god 
was  the  **  soul  of  the  world,"  of  course  thai  the  \»  orld  was  god, 
and  every  part  of  it  might  be  worshipped, — and  thus  encouraged 


|)olvt1ieisffi.  Plato  taught  that  the  best  guide  was  the  Delphian 
Oracles^  and  in  his  *'  Utopia"  or  model  of  a  perfect  Repiil)lic, 
he  recommended  community  of  rvives  and  the  regular  woi'ship  of 
their  old  idols  ! — Socrates,  with  his  dying  breath,  ordered  to  sa- 
crifice a  cock  to  Esculapius,  the  god  of  physic  !  And  not  a 
Philosopher  can  he  named  but  showed  the  childishness  of  his 
notions  on  religion.  Yet  these  are  the  enlightened  men  whom 
Amicus  places  on  a  par  in  point  of  spiritual  information  witli 
the  people  of  this  Christian  land  ! 

But  tlie  character  on  whom  he  seems  principally  to  rely  is 
Marcus  Jureiius,  Emperor  of  Rome.  He  lived  one  hundred 
and  sixty  years  after  Christ,  and  when  Christianity  had  made 
considerable  progress  in  his  Empire.  He  was  a  great  philoso- 
pher, and  in  a  popular  sense,  an  excellent  man.  But  his  Me- 
ditations" show  that  lie  was  only  or  hardly  a  sober  deist.  He 
held  that  God  was  the  soul  of  the  world,"  and  therefore  tliat 
every  part  of  tlie  world  was  god,  and  he  hismelf  a  part  of  God. 
He  considered  his  mind  or  soul  a  part  of  the  Divine  essence, 
and  tlierefore  speaks  of  having  God  within  him.  Thus  he  prays 
to  the  world,  **  Whatsoever  is  agreeable  to  tliee.  O  comely 
World,  is  agreeable  to  me."  And  again,  **  Every  thing  is  ac- 
ceptable fruit  to  me  whicli  thy  seasons,  0  nature,  bear.  From 
thee  are  all  tinngs,  in  thee  all  things  subsist,  and  +o  thee  all 
things  return."  He  generally  spoke  in  the  polytheistic  strain, 
swore  by  *'  Jupiter  and  all  the  gods,"  and  was  remarkably  pro- 
fuse in  his  sacrifices  at  their  shrines.  Was  tliis  worshipping 
Jehovah  !  Confession  of  sin  made  no  part  of  his  religion — any 
more  than  it  does  of  yours  !  He  gives  not  the  least  hint  of  a 
future  Judgment,  or  of  the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  and  speaks 
doubtfully  of  the  Immortality  of  the  soul  !i!  How  enlightened  he 
must  have  been  !  Wliat  remarkable  revelations  he  must  have 
had  !  How  dearly  he  loved  Chnstianity  all  historians  tell. 
Milner  says  he  was  *•  an  implacable  persecutor  of  Christians 
for  nineteen  years," — that  is  till  death  cut  short  his  persecuting 
arm.  Mosheim  says,  **  It'  we  except  tliat  of  JVero,  there  was* 
no  reign  under  which  the  Christians  were  more  injuriously  and 
cruelly  ti'eated  than  under  that  of  the  wise  and  virtuous  Marcus 
Aurelius."  Besides  thousands  of  others,  the  venerable  Poly- 
carp  and  Justin  Martyr  fell  a  sacrifice  to  his  cruelty.  Yet  Ami- 
cus is  right  in  supposing  him  a  good  Quaker.  He  had  no  sense 
of  .sin — v.as  proud  and  self  complacent — an  adversary  to  the 
gospelf  said  notliing  of  future  punishment,  and  thought  his  own 
wicked  heart  was  a  divine  light  and  a  better  guide  than  the 
Bible  ! 

And  now,  I  wish  to  ask  a  fev/  more  Questions.    If  an  Inter- 


243 


nal  Ttevdation  .superior  to  tlie  External  Revelation  of  ihc 
Sv  riptures,  be  given  to  all  mankind,  liow  happens  it ; 

1.  riiat  the  lieatlien  are  s  >  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of  tlii^ 
Trinity?  The  Bible  sjK'aks  of  **  Three  that  bear  record  in 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  and  tiie  Holy  Ghost,  winch  three 
are  one."  1  John  v.  7.  Now  how  ha])pens  it  that  their  reve- 
lation never  told  them  of  this  important  truth  ?  2.  If  their  Re- 
velation be  superior  to  ours,  how  happens  it  that  not  one  of  them 
says  a  word  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  a  Messiah— of  a  Mediator — or 
of  a  Saviour  for  sinners  ?  Is  this  a  subject  of  no  importance  ? 
Why  then  has  not  their  revelation  taught  it  to  them  ?  Let  Ami- 
cus answer  it. 

3.  If  they  have  a  Light  superior  to  the  Bible,  how  happens  it 
that  not  one  of  their  spiritual  guides  ever  taught  them  to  rest 
their  hope  of  pardon  on  the  Atonement  of  a  Mediatorial  substi- 
tute ?  If  they  had  so  much  light,  why  did  none  of  them  speak 
of  such  an  atonement?  4.  If  they  have  so  much  light,  how 
'  happens  it  that  none  of  tliem  teach  the  total  depraritif  of  the 
human  heart — the  lial)ility  of  siniiers  to  eternal  wrath,  and 
the  necessity  of  regeneration?  These  trutiis  are  essential  to 
salvation.  Now  can  Amicus  quote  one  instance  of  a  man  ac- 
quii'ing  a  knowledge  of  tliese  truths  by  Tnternal  without  Exter- 
nal revelation — Let  him  try. 

5.  Had  the  Light  he  suj)poscs  to  have  been  given  to  the  hea- 
then efficacy  equal  to  the  Bible  to  purify  the  heart  and  life  ?  He 
will  hardly  deny  there  are  some  saints  in  Christendom,  some 
who  live  a  life  of  Penitence,  Faith  and  Holiness.  Now  will  he 
produce  one  instatice — only  one — of  a  person  destitute  of  exter- 
nal revelation  who  showed  by  his  life  that  liis  heart  was  holy  and 
that  he  had  felt  the  power  of  the  g()S|)el  ?  Can  you  procluce  one 
of  all  these  e?j//^/<rf?te(/ philosophers  w  ho  w  as  not  either  an  idola- 
ter— or  a  Persecutor,  or  an  advocate  for  Lying — for  fornication, 
— for  community  of  wives — for  the  murder  of  poor  and  un- 
healthy children — or  w  ho  was  not  a  Sod{unite  ?  The  Internal 
Xight.  therefore,  of  the  heatlien  (if  they  liad  any)  had  no  effi- 
cacy to  purify  their  lives.  But  Amicus  acknowledges  that  the 
Bible  has  etiicacy,  for  he  says,  *'  light  has  been  more  distinctly 
felt,  and  improved  wliere  the  Bible  has  come,  because  the  Bible 
every  wdiere  directs  its  reader  to  attend  to  internal  light." 
Reader,  this  is  an  important  acknow  le  ignient,  and  upon  it 
1  would  found  a  few  more  Questions,  to  wliicii  I  hope  Amicus 
will  give  an  honest  answer.  1.  Is  not  this  in  effect  admitting 
that  without  the  Scrijitures,  Internal  Liglit  is  an  inefficaaous 
and  insufficient  guide  ?  AVitliout  the  Bible' it  is  not  *♦  distinctly 
S2 


I 


^50 

felt  and  improved."  2.  Is  not  tliis  lighting  a  candle  to  discover 
the  Sun  ? — sending  the  Bible  to  lead  to  a  Greater  Light!  If 
the  Sun  of  Righteousness  was  previously  shining  on  the  Gentile  - 
world,  how  could  the  rising  of  a  lesse.r  light  increase  our  spiri- 
tual vision  ?  Now  it  appears  to  me  that  as  the  Bibles  wherever 
it  has  come,  has  turned  darkness  into  day,  that  this  is  a  sufficient 
proof  of  its  being  superior  to  all  other  lights. 

3.  Even  on  your  own  principles  that  Internal  Light  is  more 
distinctly  felt  and  improved  where  the  Bible  conges,  is  not  the 
diffusion  of  the  Bible  most  importawt  ?  If  a  man  had  a  *'  trea- 
sure hid  in  a  field,"  or  a  **  light  under  a  bushel"  which  he  did 
not,  could  not  know  of  till  some  one  told  him,  would  it  be  kind' 
in  any  one  to  withhold  the  information  ?  Now,  granting  that 
the  heathen  have  within  them  all  the  light  which  you  suppose,  if 
that  light  has  no  efficacy  to  purify  their  hearts  and  lives,  and  if 
it  can  never  be  '*  distinctly  felt  and  improved  or  attended  to" 
till  the  Bible  is  put  into  their  hands, — why  do  you  oppose  the  cir- 
cidation  of  the  Scriptures — condemn  Bible  Societies — exalt  and  ex- 
tol the  light  of  the  heathen — and  underrate  the  light  of  the  Bible  I 

And  now,  my  friends,  while  I  condemn  your  errors,  I  love 
your  persons,  sincerely  mourn  for  your  delusion,  and  long  and 
pray  for  vour  salvation. 

PAUL. 


Se'venth'day,  3  J.  Mo.  30,  1822, 

LETTER  XXV. 


From  tlie  many  dear  Scripture  texts  wliicb  Amicus  has  ad- 
vanced to  demonstrate  that  GoJ*s  love  to  mankind  is  universal, 
not  confined  to  any  nation,  tongue  or  people,  but  that  he  hath 
furnislied  all  men  witli  adequate  means  of  Salvation — texts  too 
clear  to  be  misunderstood,  too  plain  to  need  any  illustration — I 
think  it  appears,  that  the  present  is  not  so  much  a  controversy 
between  *•  Paul"  and  **  Amicus"  as  a  contest  between  Paul 
the  Presbyterian,  and  Paul  the  Apostle — between  Paul,  a  wri- 
ter in  a  paper  called  **the  Christian  Repository,"  and  the  Wri- 
ters of  a  Book  called  the  Bible" — between  the  Religion  ot 
apostatized  Christendom,  and  the  Religion  of  the  Patriarchs, 
Prophets,  our  Lord  and  the  primitive  church  ! 

In  order  to  elucidate  this  position,  I  will  in  a  concise  manner, 
review  the  sentiments  of  these  opposing  parties ! — 1  will  first 
state  the  doctrine  of  Paul  the  Presbyterian,  and  then  quote  a 
few  passages  from  Paul  the  Apostle  and  other  Scripture  Writers 
by  way  of  conti'ast  ! 

My  Opponent  holds  the  doctrine,  that  *•  the  Scriptures  arc 
the  supreme  and  o)ily  standard  of  faith  and  practice,"  the  es- 
sential means  of  salvation — that  without  them  mankind  are  left 
in  irremediable  darkness  and  sin,  and  consequently  are  doomed 
to  perish  by  hundreds  of  millions — to  go  away  into  everlasting 
misery,  into  eternal  damnation" — And  thus  to  perish  be- 
cause they  could  not  have  what  God  was  not  pleased  to  give 
them — to  perish,  to  be  tormented,  not  by  any  fault  of  their  own, 
but  because  God  withheld  from  them  tlie  only  means  of  salva- 
tion !!! — And  thus  he  makes  the  blessed  Creator,  of  whom  it  is 
said  The  Lord  is  good  to  all,  his  tender  mercies  are  over  all 
Jiis  Tt'or/xS,"  Psalm  cxlv.  9.  a  more  cruel,  a  more  unjust,  a  more 
tyrannical  Being  than  was  ever  conceived  of  by  the  most  gloomy 
and  perverted  imagination. 

The  first  Scripture  Writer  I  shall  quote,  is  the  prophet  Eze- 
kiel,  xxxiii.  11.  20.  This  passage  is  very  appropriate,  as  the 
prophet  sec.nsto  be  addressing  just  such  mtionists  as  my  oppo- 
nent, who  say,  The  ways  of  the  Lord  are  not  equal !"  **  As 
I  live,  saith  tlie  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of 
the  wicked,  but  that  tlie  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live  !" 
"  PauTs  doctrine  is  t!ie  very  reverse  of  this  !  It  is  that  God 
has  great  pleasure  in  the  (.eath  of  the  wicked  ;  and  m  t  onl;  in 
the  death  of  the  wicked,  but,  in  the  death  and  damnation  of  mil- 


252 


?ions«  who  never  had  a  know  Jedge  of  his  will  !  who  never  had 
the  divine  law,  and  consequent!} ,  never  tian^^eressed  it — *•  for 
where  there  is  no  law  there  is  no  transgression,"  Rom.  iv.  15. 
It  is  that  God  has  predestinated  myriads  of  his  ra  ional  creatures 
to  hell,  hcfore  t];ey  were  horn,  and  after  he  gave  tliem  existence, 
wilfully  withluld  from  theni  the  only  means  of  salvation  ; 
means  wliich  he  could  easily  have  afforded  them,  hut  witiiheld  it 
tliat  the\  might  live  in  darkness  and  perish  without  remedy  !!! 

The  Sci'iptures,"  says  my  opponent,  **  are  the  supreme  and 
only  rule"  or  law — Now,  if  this  be  true,  there  can  be  no  sin 
where  there  is  no  Scripture  !  **  For  sin,"  says  the  Apostle,  **  is 
the  transgression  of  the  law" — and  **  where  there  is  no  law, 
there  is  no  transgression,"  consequently  God  must  delight  in  the 
eternal  torments  of  his  creatures,  not  because  they  transgress- 
ed his  will  or  law,  but  because  they  liad  no  law  to  transgj-ess  !!! 

The  Apostle  Paul  who  ^  as  particularly  commissioned  to 
preach  to  the  heathen  had  enlarged  vie\>  s  of  the  efficacy  and  ex- 
tent of  God's  love  and  mercy  !  **  I  exhort"  says  he,  that  sup- 
plication, prayers  and  givitig  of  thanks  be  made  for  all  vien, 
for  this  is  good  and  accepti'ble  in  the  sight  of  God  our  Sa- 
viour, who  w  ill  ha^e  all  men  to  be  saved  and  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth," — **  for  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Me- 
diator between  God  and  Men.  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave 
Jiimself  a  ransom  for  all.^*  1  Tim.  ii.  1,  3,  4,  5.  6.  In  this 
text  the  efficacy  and  extent  of  the  great  Ji^eans  of  salvation  are 
expressly  declared  !    **  He  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved" — 

Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  a//."  This  is  in  perfect 
consonance  with  the  sentiments  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who,  in 
one  short  passage  doubly  ]»roves  our  proposition  !  P'irst,  nega- 
tively. The  Lord  is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish  :" — 
then  aflirmatively,  **  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance," 
2  Peter  iii.  9.  This  passage  again  is  in  full  accordance  with 
the  testimony  of  the  eminently  enlightened  Apostle  John,  where 
lie  says,  IJ  d'^m  man  sin  wdiavc  an  advocate  with  the  Father, 
Jesus  Christ  the  Righteous,  and  he  is  the  propitiation  /broit7*si?i5, 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  oj'  the  whole  icorW," 
1  John  ii.  1,  2.  This  divinely  illuminated  Apostle  seems  to 
have  had  in  view  the  ca\illing  objections  of  such  men  as  my 
opponent,  who  appropriate  all  God's  mercy  to  such  as  they  sup- 
pose themselves,  **  the  believers" — the  elect" — **  the  saints" 
For  here  the  Apostle  exj)ressl}  says,  *'  not  for  o?/r  sins  only" — 
not  only  a  proj)itiation  lor  those  w  ho  have  beei]  favoured  w  ith 
the  external  and  internal  evidence  oi  the  truth,  but  also  for  the 
sins  of  the  whole  world*' — for  the  sins  of  those  who  never  heard 


553 


of  the  Messiah — Because,  as  sin  is  a  universal  disease,  so  is  the 
remedy.  If  anif  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate" — Jew  and 
Gentile,  Scythian  and  Barbarian,  Chinese  and  Mahometan, 
Hindoo  and  Birinan,  African  and  Aniei-ican  Indian — all  **  have 
an  advocate" — all  through  the  internal  **  manifestations  of  the 
Spirit,  which  is  given  to  evei-y  man  to  profit  withal,"  have  the 
means  of  reconciliation  and  redemption — all  have  the  medicine, 
which  is  as  extensive  as  the  disease  :  and  consequently,  every 
man  who  is  willing  to  accept  the  proffered  boon  may  become  an 
heir  of  Salvation. 

Paul"  in  his  last  address  to  us,  quotes  the  Apostle  to  the 
Corinthians,  where  he  says,  **  iVfter  that,  in  the  wisdom  of  God, 
the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by  the  fool- 
ishness of  j)reaching  to  save  them  tljat  believe;"  and  tells  us 
that  *'  it  appears  by  this  passage,  that  one  design  of  Providence 
in  leavmg  the  Gentiles  so  long  without  the  Scriptures,  was  to 
'  shew  that  no  other  light  wouhi  be  suificientfor  man's  salvation." 
One  design  of  Pi'o\idence,  then,  in  this  experiment,  by  which, 
according  to  my  opponent,  innumerable  immortal  souls  were 
thrown  into  liell,  was  to  show  7ts,  to  convince  ?ts,  poor  moths,  that 
the  Scriptures  are  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  after  all,  this 
awful  experiment  has  failetl  to  produce  the  intended  effect;  and 
thus  he  makes  a  merciful  God  to  tlirow  millions  of  ne\  er  dying 
creatures  into  a  gulf  of  interminable  misery,  in  order  to  convince 
us  of  what  cannot  be  true,  imless  the  plainest  scripture  testimo- 
nies are  absolutely  false.  Thus  the  awfui  gulf  of  endless  tor- 
ment swallowed  millions  of  helpless  victims  for  four  thousand 
years,  in  order  to  produce  a  conviction  derogatory  to  every 
principle  of  Justice  and  mercy — in  order  to  shew  us  that  the 
most  excellent,  the  most  amiable,  the  most  glorious  Being,  is  a 
cruel  tyrant,  every  way  worthy  of  execration,  instead  of  adora- 
tion and  praise.  If  anv  of  Paul's"  readers  can  digest  such 
doctrine  as  this,  I  think  we  need  not  envy  them  their  taste  or 
understanding. 

But  who  has  ever  said,  that  "the  world  by  its  wisdom  can 
know  God  r"  I  am  sure  Amicus  has  nevei'  advanced  such  a  sen- 
timent !  No  man,  whether  he  have  the  Scriptures  oi-  not,  can 
ever  know  God  but  bv  one  medium.  The  Scriptures  cannot 
give  us  this  knowledge !  They  may  give  us  notions  but  not  know- 
ledge! It  always  was,  and  always  will  be,  a  ti-uth  that  **  no  man 
knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will 
reveal  him."  Matt.  xi.  27.  Without  immediate  revelation," 
w  iiich  my  opponent  says  has  ceased,  tliere  can  be  no  true  know- 
leilge  of  God ! ! !  And  without  this  we  may  talk  and  reason  and 


254 


dispute  about  the  nature  of  the  Deity  till  death  shall  seize  us, 
and  yet  be  as  ignorant  of  God  as  the  most  ignorant  savage !  I 
quoted  Tliales,  Solon,  Chilon,  Bias  and  other  heathens,  to  shew, 
not  that  they  had  attained  to  the  true  and  saving  knowledge  of 
God  by  their  own  wisdom,  but  with  the  avowed  intention  of  prov- 
ing that  a  measure  or  manifestation  of  the  Spirit,''  according 
to  the  Apostle's  doctrine  hath  appeared  unto  all  men,"  and  that 
by  this  Holy  Spirit  they  had  attained  to  sucli  a  knowledge  of  the 
divine  nature,  and  of  its  operation  and  effects,  both  on  them- 
selves and  in  tlie  works  of  nature  generally,  as  iio  Book,  no  Writ- 
ings no  Preacher,  can  possibly  give — Books  and  preachers  can 
only  convince  the  natural  understanding — it  is  the  supreme  and 
exclusive  prerogative  of  the  Holy  Spirit — the  Spirit  that  was  in 
Christ,  to  impress  the  soul  with  the  true  and  saving  knowledge 
of  God,  "  No  man  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and  he  to 
whom  the  Son  will  reveal  him." 

This  eternal  truth  is  evinced  in  the  most  undeniable  manner 
by  our  Saviour  himself,  where  he  says,  Jolin  xvii.  3.  "  Anti  this 
is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  tliou  has  sent ;"  By  this  text  it  appears  that 
the  true  knowledge,  the  internal  experimental  knowledge  of  God, 
and  life  eternal,  are  inseperably  connected ;  but  such  a  know- 
ledge of  God  as  can  be  obtained  by  reading  the  Scriptures,  may 
subsist  in  the  most  vicious  and  depraved  of  the  human  family ; 
in  the  glutton,  the  drunkard,  the  robber  and  the  murderer. 

But  my  opponent  tells  us  that  the  true  and  sublime  knowledge 
of  God  which  tlie  heathens  obtained  was  the  discovery  of  Rea- 
son, or  the  Light  of  JS/^ature  or  Conscience — Now  if  he  mean  by 
Reason,  the  Light  of  JS'*ature  or  Conscience,  any  thing  that  belongs 
to  man  as  a  natural  animal — tiiis  is  absurd,  because  it  is  to 
make  tlie  effect  greater  than  tlie  cause — it  is  to  give  the  natural 
faculties  of  man  a  power  to  unveil  divine  mysteries — to  j)ene- 
trate  heaven,  and  comprehend  the  things  of  God  without  divine 
assistance — which  is  impossible!  How  much  more  rational  is 
the  view  of  the  great  Apostle  on  this  subject !  Let  us  hear  him  : 

For  w  hat  man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  but  by  the  Spirit 
of  a  man  that  is  in  him  ?  Eveti  so,  the  things  of  God  no  man 
knoweth,  but  by  the  Spirit  of  God."  1  Cor.  ii.  11.  Here  we  see 
ev  ery  thing  in  divine  order,  **  the  things  of  a  man,''  every  thing 
connected  with  liis  animal  or  rational  nature,  is  within  the  pow- 
er and  com]>rehension  of  **  the  Spirit  of  a  man  that  is  in  him^''  is 
discernible  by  Reason,  the  Light  of  *Kature,  Conscience:  but 
Ihvigs  of  God  no  man  knoweth,''  nor  can  possibly  know  but  by 

the  Spirit  of  God." — Any  other  knowledge  of  God  is  mere  no- 


255 


tion — a  sliatlowy  false  idea  floating  in  the  brain — as  far  removed 
from  the  reality,  as  is  any  notion  of  the  nature  of  Light,  enter- 
tained by  a  man,  w  ho  never  had  any  eyes  ;  as  foreign  from  the 
tnith  as  the  idea  of  the  blind  man,  who,  we  are  told,  was  once 
delighted  with  a  supposed  discovery  of  the  appearance  of  purple; 
and  who,  on  being  asked  what  it  was  like,  replied,  that  it  was 
exactly  like  the  sound  of  a  trumpet ! 

Paul"  tells  us,  tliat  before  Amicus  attributes  the  doctrines 
of  these  heathen  Philosophers  to  "  Internal  Light,"  he  is  bound 
to  prove  that  the  whole  of  their  knoxvledge  was  not  derived  from 
tradition,  &c."  This  is  the  first  time  that  1  ever  heard  that 
any  man  was  bound  to  prove  a  negative  !!!  I  think  it  would  be 
more  in  order  for  him  to  prove  the  affirmative.  But  this  he  ne- 
ver can  do — many  of  them  lived  before  the  greater  part  of  the 
Scriptures  were  written,  and  they  evince  that  kind  of  experimen- 
tal knowledge  of  God,  that  no  tradition  can  possibly  convey. 

My  opponent  thinks  that  because  these  Philosophers  and  pious 
heathen,  did  not  in  all  things  act  consistently  with  the  light  so 
conspicuously  displayed  in  their  doctrine,  that  therefore,  they 
had  no  divine  light, — Now  if  this  argument  be  good,  we  can 
easily  prove  that  the  most  eminent  Christians  never  had  the 
Scriptures  ///  Luther,  acknowledged  the  real  presence  in  the 
Eucharist ! — Calvin  signed  a  death  warrant  to  burn  Servetus  ! 
Cranmer  proclaimed  the  murderous  Henry  VII L  as  supreme 
Head  of  the  Church  !  The  Presbyterians  in  New  England, 
maimed,  whipped  and  hanged  the  dissenters  from  their  creed  ! 
And  yet,  will  any  one  say  that  these  never  had  the  Scriptures  ? 
Or  will  he  say  that  the  Gospel  sanctions  these  things  ?  Interest, 
passion,  and  prejudice,  produce  great  inconsistencies  of  conduct, 
but  it  will  not  thence  follow  that  those  who  do  wrong  act  con- 
sistently with  their  principles. 

The  Scriptures  teach  us  that  those  who  have  the  Light  may 
not  profit  by  it — **  He  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  Light,  neither 
cometh  to  the  Light  lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved."  John 
iii.  20.  This  is  the  great  reason  why  so  mucb  darkness  pre- 
vails over  the  world !  This  is  the  reason  why  boasted  Chris- 
tendom with  all  its  professions  of  regard  for  tlie  Bible  falls  be- 
hind the  very  heathen  in  the  essentials  of  true  faith.  Man  is 
born  into  the  world  a  poor  dark  creature — ignorant  of  God  and 
divine  things  !  Gospel  light,  like  the  light  of  the  natural  day,  is 
at  first  a  very  gentle  radiance.  It  is  compared  by  our  Lord  to 
"  a  grain  of  mustard  seed" — to  "  a  little  leaven" — it  requires  a 
disposition  to  cultivate  it — to  suffer  it  to  operate.  Hence  the 
propriety  of  the  Apostolic  exhortation,  "  Quench  not  the  Spi- 


25.6 


rit man  may  resist  it — may  liate  it — may  turn  away  from  it — 
may  shut  his  eyes  so  that  he  ma>  lose  tiie  heuefit  of  its  heams  ! 
and  therefore  our  Saviour  declares  "if  the  Light  that  is  in  thee 
become  darkness^  how  great  is  that  darkness,'*  Like  the  seed  tliat 
the  Sower  went  forth  to  sow— it  has  to  contend  with  hriars  and 
thorns — with  rocky  ground — w  ith  the  fowls  of  the  air — and  w  ith 
the  hcasts  of  the  earth.  If  under  all  these  unfavoui'ahle  circum- 
stances, it  has  made  no  very  considerable  appearance,  we  ought 
not  to  marvel !  The  world  is  in  array  against  it.  It  discovers 
its  pride,  its  sensuality,  its  selfishness.  The  protended  follow- 
ers of  Christ  are  against  it — it  discovers  tlicir  hypocrisy — the 
professed  ministers  of  Christ  are  against  it.  It  manifests  their 
amhition,  tlieir  venality.  Tliey  decry  it,  they  vilify  it,  they 
give  it  opprobious  names,  and  do  all  in  their  power  to  turn  the 
attention  of  their  ]jearers/ro7»i  it  to  them  /  Nevertheless,  in  spite 
of  all  opposition,  it  will  prevail!  It  is  the  **  stone  that  was  cut 
out  of  the  mountain  witliout  hands,"  and  will  finally  "  fill  the 
whole  earth."  Its  progress,  tiiough  slow,  is  certain  !  Mystery 
Babylon  must  fall !  and  her  aiei*cha!its  who  have  been  made 
rich  by  their  spiritual  traffick,  will  yet  have  to  say,  wiiilst  tliey 
weep  over  the  smoaking  ruin^  **  Babylon  is  fallen,  is  fallen 


AMICUS. 


^57 


EDITORIAL  NOTES. 

j-wis  the  foregoing  JS^o.  of  Amicus^''  closes  the  first  vol,  of  the  Re- 
pository, and  as  through  some  miscalculation  of  the  printer^ 
there  would  otherwise  be  two  blank  pages ^  we  have  taken  the  li- 
berty to  add  the  following  notes,  from  the  Repository  of  Jan,  25, 
and  July  7,  1821.] 

[We  insert"  John"  (seepage  35)  to  show  that  we  are  favour- 
able to  free  discussion.  At  the  same  time  we  cannot  refrain 
from  dissenting  from  the  opinion  wliich  he  seems  to  express,  in 
respect  to  the  holy  scriptures.  We  believe  that  every  thing 
which  in  the  least  degree  tends  to  weaken  our  belief  in  their  di- 
vine oi'igin,  and  of  course  their  being  the  infallible  rule  of  life, 
goes  to  sap  the  true  foundation  of  our  faith  ;  and  leaAes  us  like 
the  frighted  mariner  in  the  storm,  without  either  sail  or  helm. 
To  the  \s  ritten  law  and  Testimony  we  cling.  Peter,  contrast- 
ing the  Scriptures  with  ocular  demonstration,  gives  the  prefer- 
ence to  the  former,  and  says,  altliough  we  have  ocular  demon- 
sti'ation  of  the  divinity  of  Christ, — '*  We  have  also  a  moi'e  sure 
word  of  prophecy,  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  &c." 
— and  JoHX  the  Apostle  says,  (under  the  Spirit  of  inspiration,  no 
doubt)  **  If  any  man  shall  add  to  or  take  from  the  words  of  the 
book  of  this  Prophecy,  &c."  If  the  Scriptures  are  not  the  rule 
of  life,  tlie  infallible  guide,  why  so  severe  a  sentence  against 
those  who  pervert  them  !  Christians,  in  their  present  imperfect 
state,  will  and  do  have  different  views  of  the  same  portion  of 
Scripture;  but  wlien  the  time  comes,  tuat  none  need  say  to  his 
brother  know  ye  the  Lord,"  then  they  will  be  enabled  to  dis- 
cover the  beauty  of  many  passages,  w  hich  now  appear  to  be  en- 
veloped in  mystery.] 

EDITOR. 


We  have  no  desire  to  enter  the  field  of  controversy  with 
••John,"  but  must  in  self-defence  add  a  word  or  two.  John" 
(in  his  last  No.  see  page  34,)  says,  **  It  is  admitted  that  he  (the 
Apostle  John,)  wrote  his  Gospel  and  Epistles  after  he  wrote  the 
book  of  Revelations.  Scott,  Doddridge,  Henry,  Gill,  Brown, 
and  most,  if  not  all  the  leading  commentators  testify  to  the 


contrary  :  all  considering  it  as  tlie  last  written  book  of  the 
Bible;  and  (hap.  xxii.  18,  19,  as  applicable  j9?'mari/ to  the  last 
book,  hut  generally  to  the  whole  of  Scripture.  It  is  of  similar 
import  with  Deut.  iv.  2.  Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  wonl 
■which  I  commanded  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  ought  from 
it,  &c."  and  Prov.  xxx.  5,  6.  Every  word  of  God  is  pure — 
Add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  lie  reprove  thee,  and  thou  be 
found  a  liar.'*  Those  passages  have  a  two-fold  meaning  ;  they 
teach  us  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures  ;  and  also  that  the 
**  word  of  God"  docs  not  mean  Clirist,  but  is  properly  ai)plied 
to  the  Bible.  See  also  Mark  vii.  13.  ^*  Making  the  word  of 
God  of  none  effect  thr-ough  your  tradition,  which  ye  have  deliv- 
ered :  and  many  sucli  like  things  do  ye." — So  also  Luke  iv.  4, 
— V.  1. — xi.  28.  John  viii.  47.  Acts  iv.  31. — vi.  2. — xiii.  44, 
46.  2  Cor.  ii.  17. — iv.  2.  Heb.  xiii.  17.  and  a  hundred  others, 
showing  the  ivord  to  mean  the  Scripture. 

In  reply  to  Jolin's"  remark  on  2  Peter,  1.9,  we  give  the 
words  of  Scott,  in  his  comments  on  tiiat  passage — The  **  word 
of  prophecy"  is  called  *'  more  sure,"  because  it  is  a  more^en- 
eral  and  permanent  proof,  than  tlie  vision  on  the  mount,  whifli? 
though  tlie  s^ro?i^es^  evidence  to  them,  is  comparatively  little  evi- 
dence to  others. 

In  conrhision,  we  are  sorry  to  say  that  **  John's"  explan- 
ations do  not  go  to  remove  tlie  im})ressions  first  made,  that  he  ^ 
too  liglitly  esteems  the  written  word. 


Editor. 


^59  ■ 

Saturday,  April  13,  iSii. 


LETTER  XXIV. 


ON  IXTERXAL  LIGHT. 

How  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  hare  not  heard"? 
and  how  shall  they  hear  xvithont  a  jfreacher,    Rom.  x.  14. 

The  Apostle  in  the  above  passage  declares  his  ignorance  of 
any  way  in  which  tlie  heathen  can  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
Christ  without  external  revelation.  And  therefore,  in  the  next 
verse,  he  says  How  beautiful  upon  the  mountains  are  the  feet 
of  them  that  ])reach  the  gospel  of  peace,  that  bring  glad  tidings? 
of  good  things!"  Amicus,  it  seems,  lias  more  wisdom,  and  as- 
serts that  **  Solon,  Bias  and  otiier  heathen  attained  such  a 
knowledge  of  God  as  no  Book,  no  writing,  no  Preacher  could 
possibly  give !" 

To  lighten  his  burden  as  much  as  possible,  instead  of  com- 
pelling him  to  prove  that  every  child  of  Adam  has  a  sufficient 
revelation  witliout  the  Bible,  1  will  give  up  tlie  argument  if  he 
will  prove  his  doctrine  true  of  a  single  individual  of  our  race. 
If  he  will  produce  a  single  instance  (except  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles  who  had  extraordinary  inspiration)  of  a  man  who  be- 
lieved" in  Christ  without  having  lirst  "heard"  of  Christ  in  an 
external  way,  I  will  confess  the  Apostle  mistaken  and  myself 
disappointed.  And  as  he  knows  more  of  himself  than  any  body 
else,  I  will  risk  the  whole  on  his  proving  that  he  would  have  ev- 
er had  even  a  glimpse  of  the  Gospel  and  the  way  of  salvation 
without  the  Bible  and  external  teacliing.  To  assist  him  in  his 
inquiry,  I  ask 

1.  How  do  you  know  that  just  God  will  ever  pardon  the 
transgressor  of  his  law:  Or  that  He  has  contrived  a  way  of  sal- 
vation for  sinners.  The  Apostle  says,  **  life  and  immortality 
are  brouglit  to  light  through  the  gospel,  of  which  I  am  appointed 
a  preacher  and  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles.  Therefore  hold  fast 
the  ft)rm  of  sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me."  2  Tim. 
11.  13.  Now  quere,  did  you  not  obtain  your  knowledge  fronoi 
the  Apostle  or  from  some  other  human  teacher? 

2.  How  did  you  learn  that  Jesus  of  A^ax>areth  was  the  only  • 
Saviour  ?  by  immediate  revelation  ?  or  by  some  Book  or  Teach- 
er ?  **  Faith"  in  him  generally    comes  by  hearing,"  anu  hear- 
ing by  some  preacher. 

3.  How  did  you  learn  that  Repentance  of  sin  and  Faith  in  Je- 
sus Christ  were  the  terms  of  salvation?  Strange  that  none  of 
your  inspired  heathen  should  have  given  tiie  least  hint  of  jaith 


260 


m  Christ  being  a  duty.    The  Athenians  wlio  were  the  most  reli- 
gimis  of  all  the  Greeks,  and  among  whom  many  of  your  pious'* 
philosophers  lived,  laughed  at     Jesus  and  the  Resurrection 
Acts  xvii.  18.  Now  how  came  you  to  look  on  Jesus  Christ  in  a- 
different  light? 

4.  How  did  you  learn  that  no  righteousness  of  your  own  could 
justify  you  at  the  bar  of  God,  and  that  you  must  be  saved,  if 
saved  at  all,  through  the  righteousness  of  a  crudfied  Mediator  ? 
The  **  cross  of  Christ"  or  sah  ation  through  his  death,  was  **to 
the  Greeks  foolishness;''  how  came  it  to  appear  wisdom"  to 
you  ? 

5.  How^  did  you  learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  Divini- 
ty of  Jesus,  the  necessity  of  Regeneration^  salvation  by  Faith, 
and  the  everlasting  Punishment  of  the  wicked  ?  If  you  have  not 
learned  these  things  you  are  ignorant  of  the  elements  of  Christi- 
anity ;  if  you  have  learned  them,  /  challenge  you  to  prove  yon 
have  not  learned  them  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  despised  Bible, 

To  the  doctrine,  that  where  there  is  no  external,  tliere  is  no 
internal  revelation,  he  objects, 

1.  Obj. — God  declares  himself  unwilling  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance,  and  tiiat  ^Hie  has 
no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked hence  it  follows,  he 
gives  internal  revelation  to  all."  How  very  logical  such  rea- 
soning! Might  I  not  just  as  well  say,  therefore  he  gives  cx/^r- 
nal  revelation  or  the  Bible  to  all" — or  therefore,  he  gives  all  the 
means  of  grace  to  all — therefore,  he  saves  all  ?  These  inferences 
would  be  as  just  and  logical  as  the  one  he  has  drawn.  The 
above  texts  prove  tmiversal  piety  and  universal  salvation,  as 
much  as  they  do  universal  light  and  grace.  These  texts  provc^ 
nothing  as  to  the  actual  application  of  salvation,  or  they  would 
pi'ovc  Universalism,  They  only  assert  the  fulness  of  the  provi- 
sion which  God  has  made,  and  show  that  it  is  not  His  fault,  but 
the  fault  of  his  creatures,  if  any  are  not  saved.  God  is  unwill- 
ing (in  tlie  same  sense)  that  there  should  he  any  sin  in  the  world 
— that  there  should  be  any  swearers,  drunkards,  heretics  oi*  im- 
penitent infidels  on  earth,  for  he  has  forbidden  all  these  things. 
But  does  this  prove  there  is  no  sin,  no  sinners  in  the  world !  Just 
as  much  as  the  above  texts  prove  that  he  gives  a  revelation  to  all 
mankind.  There  is  a  sense  in  wliicli  God  wills  the  salvation  of 
the  heathen,— he  has  provided  a  salvation  exactly  suited  to  their 
wants — he  has  commanded  his  people  to  send  this  gospel  to  every 
creature — and  promised  to  sa\  c  all  of  any  nation,  who  will  ir- 
pent  and  believe.  This  is  enough  to  ac([uit  Him,  and  justify 
the  declaration  in  these  texts.    But  there  is  so  much  Quakerism 


261 


in  the  world,  such  an  obstinate  notion  that  the  heathen  already 
have  saving  light,  that  the  Divine  commands  are  not  obeyed, 
the  divine  benevolence  is  not  seconded,  and  the  perdition  of  the 
heathen  lies  not  on  Go(U  hut  on  yonr  Society  and  the  other  enemies  of 
missions  J  God  is  not  that  **criiel,  unjust  and  tyrannical  Being" 
whicli  you  represent  Him  to  be,  but  ijou,  ye  opposers  of  Preach- 
ers and  of  Bible  Societies,  yon  are  the  cruel  beings  whom  tlie 
heathen  will  accuse  hereafte4'.  God  is  unwilling,,"  but  you 
arc  willing  the  heathen  should  perish.  He  has  not  withheld,  but 
has  provided  the  means  of  salvation,  but  you^  you  withhold  them, 
and  doom  the  heathen  to  destruction  ! 

2  Obj. — **  Where  there  is  no  law  tliere  is  no  transgression  ; 
if  therefore,  the  heathen  have  not  Revelation  they  are  not  trans- 
gressors."   (This  is  the  point  of  his  argument.)    The  heathen 
have  a  law,  the  law  or  light  of  A^ature,  tlie  law  or  light  of  Con- 
'   science,  and  the  law  or  liglit  of  Tradition,  which  if  they  abuse 
they  are  transgressors.    You  might  as  well  say,  a  child  cannot 
in  because  he  has  not  as  much  light  as  a  man,  or  tliat  a  common 
itizen  could  not  offend  because  he  did  not  understand  the  laws 
<A'  liis  country  as  well  as  a  lawyer.   As  there  are  degrees  of  light, 
so  there  will  be  degrees  of  guilt. 

3.  Obj. — It  is  impossible  to  know  any  thing  of  God  but  by 
Revelation,  (1  Cor.  ii.  11.)  therefore  the  heathen  must  have  had 
revelation."    Not  so,  it  is  possible  to  know  much  of  God  with- 

i  out  Revelation.  What  says  the  Psalmist,  Tlie  Heavens  de- 
I  dare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  firmament  sheweth  his  handy 
|i    work.    Day  unto  day  uftereth  speech,  and  night  unto  night  shew- 

•ih  knowledge.    Their  voice  is  gone  out  through  all  the  earth, 
n^^heir  words  to  the  end  of  the  world,"  Ps.  xix.  1,  4.  And 

what  says  the  Apostle?  Rom  i.  20.  The  invisible  things  of 
I    Him  are  clearly  seen  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal 

^ower  and  Godhead  ;  so  that  they  are  without  excuse."    It  is 
ertain,  tlierefore,  that  sa7?ie  knowledge  of  God  may  be  obtained 

without  a  revelation.    And  I  again  (lefy  Amicus  to  show  that 

any  of  his  **pious"  philosophers  had  any  more  knowledge  of  God 
I     than  what  may  be  derived  by  mere  Reason  from  looking  at  the 

licavens  and  the  works  of  God. 

4.  Obj. — •*  Christendom  falls  behind  the  very  heathen  in  the 
ssentials  of  true  faith  !!!"  He  speaks  also  of  the  *•  pious  hea- 
hen"  (as  much  a  contradiction  in  terms,  as  a  holy  sinner,  a  wise 
ool  or  a  believing  infidel  !)  and  of  '^apostatized  cliristendom  !!" 

— A|)ostatized  from  what  ?  from  Popery  ?  or  from  Paganism  ■ 
(     Reader,  what  a  pity  the  A])ostles  ever  came  to  the  Gentile  world  ! 
AVhiit  a  pity  the  Reformers  had  not  been  strangled  in  their  era 


26£ 


die !  M'hat  a  pity  the  Bible  could  not  be  returned  to  Judea,  m' 
blotted  out  of  existence,  and  the  Koran  or  Veda  substituted  in 
its  place !  What  a  pity  all  our  cliurches  could  not  be  overturn- 
ed, the  preachers  silenced,  and  every  vestige  of  Christianity 
destroyed!  we  should  be  good  Quakers  then  ! — But  this  terri- 
ble Bible — this  delusive  Liglit — these  cruel  Apostles  and  their 
followers  have  turned  away  the  people  from  Paganism,  Deism 
and  Atlieism,  led  a  large  portion  of  the  world  to  apostatize" 
from  Satan,  and  sunk  Europe  and  these  United  States,  into  a 
depth  of  spiritual  ignorance  far  below  the  enlightened  Hotten- 
tots, Tartars  and  Hindoos  ! — What  a  pity  the  pious  heathen" 
would  not  take  compasssion  on  us  and  send  us  missionaries  to 
teach  us  the  folly  of  worshipping  only  one  God,  the  absurdi- 
ty of  believing  in  Jesus  Christ  as  the  only  Saviour — in  short, 
con»municating  to  us  the  blessings  of  ignorance,  superstition, 
self-torture,  licentiousness  and  self-immolation,  and  substituting 
tlieii'  quack  nostrums  for  the  Balm  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  pre- 
scri])1ions  of  the  Great  Physician! 

Tlie  Public  will  soon  be  convinced  that  tliis  is  no  sectarian 
disi)utc,  no  contention  about  trifles,  about  externals  and  cere- 
monies, as  some  profess  to  have  thought  it.  It  must  be  already 
apparent  that  the  dispute  is  between  tlie  Bible  and  the  Liglit  of 
IK ature,  between  the  true  God  and  Jupiter,  between  Jesus  Christ 
and  idols,  between  Chi'istianity  and  heathenism  !  The  hea- 
then (whose  very  ?ia77ie  is  used  by  all  the  Scripture  writers  as 
unotlier  name  for  wickedness,)  tlie  heathen,  says  Amicus,  have 
•  more  of  the  essentials  of  true  faith  ih^i  boasted  Christendom." 
By  looking  then  at  the  heathen  worsliip  we  shall  soon  discover 
what  Amicus  considers  the     essentials  of  true  faith." 

1.  To  worship  many  gods.  The  Bible  and  Chrrstendoiri 
hold  but  One,  But  all  heathen  nations  ancient  and  modern, 
woi'ship  a  multitude.  I  challenge  him  to  name  a  single  heathca 
nation  that  ever  worshipped  only  one  God. 

2.  To  worship  immoral  deities.  He  has  selected  the  Greeks 
and  Romans  as  the  most  eminent  for  piety,  and  what  gods  did 
they  worship  ?  Their  Jupiter  whom  they  called  the  Omnipo- 
tent, Omnipresent,  Omniscient,  tlie  Thunderer,  the  Fatlier  of 
gods  and  men,  and  who  was  manifestly  regarded  as  their  su- 
preme Deity,  was  an  immoral  and  infamous  character.  He  de- 
throned his  father  Saturn,  married  his  sister  Juno,  quarrelled 
frequently  with  the  other  gods,  debauched  several  females,  and 
was  guilty  of  Sodomy  with  Ganymedes  !  Mars  was  the  god  of 
war.  Mercury  of  thieves,  Bacchus  of  drunkenness,  and  Venus  the 
goddess  of  unchastity.    Scaevola,  the  famous  Roman  poiitiffi 


2^3 

.^ays  *'thcy  make  one  . a'od  steal,  aiiotlier  commit  adultery,  and 
nothing  can  be  imagined  so  monstrous  or  so  vicious,  but  it  may 
be  found  attributed  to  the  gods."  And  Varro,  the  most  learned 
of  the  Romans,  says  all  things  are  attributed  to  the  gods 
Avhich  men,  ev  en  the  vilest  and  worst  of  men  could  be  guilty  of.'^ 
I  defy  Amicus  to  produce  one  instance,  from  all  antiquity,  of  a 
nation  acknowledging  and  worshipping  a  Holy  God.  The 
worship  then  of  immoral  deities  is  another  "  essential,"  of  true 
religion  ! 

3.  To  worship  irrational  deities.  The  Egyptians  were  the 
most  enlightened  of  all  the  ancient  nations,  insomuch  that  Py- 
thagoras and  his  other  **  pious"  philosophers  travelled  into 
Egypt  to  finish  their  education.  If  we  may  judge  from  the 
miiititnde  of  their  gods,  they  must  be  in  Amiens'  estimation  the 
most  religious  of  all  people.  But  wliat  were  their  gods  ?  Their 
chief  deity  was  a  Bull  who  was  kept  in  a  magnificent  temple, 
fed  most  luxuriously,  attended  by  a  great  number  of  priests,  &c. 
Their  other  deities  were  cats,  dogs,  serpents,  and  many  vegeta- 
bles, such  as  leeks  and  onions  ;  insomuch  tliat  the  satirical  Ju- 
venal observed  their  **gods  gi  ew  in  their  gardens  !"  Amicus 
cannot  mention  a  nation  that  did  not  worship  some  inanimate 
things.    This  then  is  another     essential  of  true  faith  !" 

4.  To  worship  dexnls.  The  worship  of  idols  is  expressly  so 
called.  Lev.  xvii.  7.  ^'  And  thev  shall  no  more  offer  their  sa- 
crifices  unto  devils.^'  2  Chron.  xi.  15.  **And  Jeroboam  or- 
dained him  priests  for  the  high  places,  and  for  the  devils,  and 
for  tlie  calves  which  he  had  made."  1  Cor.  x.  20.  But  I  say, 
the  things  which  the  Gentiles  (heathen)  sacrifice,  they  sacrifice 
to  devils,  and  not  to  God.  And  1  would  not  that  ye  should  have 
fellowship  witli  devils.  Ye  cannot  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord 
and  the  cup  of  devils,  &c."  These  devils"  were  the  idols  of 
that  very  Greece  of  whose  light  and  piety  Amicus  has  boasted  so 
much.  Now  as  he  cannot  produce  a  heathen  nation  that  did  not 
worship  idols  or  devils,  and  as  this  was  a  prominent  part  of  their 
religion,  this  must  be  one  of  the  <^  essentials  of  true  faith." 

5.  Another  essential"  must  be  to  rely  on  our  own  works  ami 
innocence  for  salvation.  For  not  a  heathen  ever  taught,  preach- 
ed or  thought  of  any  other  way.  They  so  exalted  human  merit 
as  to  put  a  man  on  a  par  with  their  supreme  God  !  Thus  Chrys- 
ippus  says,  Jupiter  has  no  pre-eminence  above  Dion  in  vir- 
tue." Seneca  says,  a  wise  man  lives  upon  a  parity  or  equal- 
ity M  ith  the  gods."  And  Plotinus  the  Philosopher,  when  ask- 
ed to  join  in  a  sacrifice  to  the  gods,  answered,  '*  It  is  for  them 
to  come  to  me,  not  for  me  to  go  to  them."  These,  reader,  are 
the    essentials"  of  true  Quaker  faith 


264 


6.  Another  essential  is  to  lie  ignoranU  totally  ignoi^ant  of  Je»m 
Christ.    For  not  one  of  these  *'  pious  heathen"  ever  heard  of 
him.  spoke  of  him,  or  knew  any  thing  ahout  him.    The  Apostle 
tells  the  Ephesians,  that  before  he  preached  to  them  they  were^ 
<^  without  Christ."  Eph.  ii.  12. 

7.  Another  essential  of  true  religion,  according  to  your 
Friend,  is  to  be  strangers  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace^  to  be  without 
hope  and  witJiout  the  true  God,  Unless  Amicus  can  show  that 
the  Ephesians  were  woi'se  off  in  this  respect  than  the  other  hea- 
then !  for  the  Apostle  says,  that  before  their  conversion  they 
were  strangers  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no 
hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world."  Eph.  ii.  12. 

Reader,  the  above  are  the  essentials  of  the  faith"  of  the 
pious  heathen  ;"  the  faith  which  Amicus  calls  the  "  true 

faith  ;"  the  faith  from  wliich  Christendom  has  *•  apostatized  ;" 

the  faith  in  wliich  those  who  have  the  Bible  fall  **  far  behind" 

the  heathen  ;  the  faith  which     Internal  Light"  teaches  and  tht' 

Bible  contradicts ! 


PAUL. 


265 


Seventh-day t  4th  mo.  20,  1822. 

LETTER  XXVI. 

When  we  consider  that  John  by  the  light  of  Revelation 
"saw  a  great  multitude,  which  no  man  could  number,  of  allna* 
tions^  and  kindredSf  and  people  and  tongues,  standing  before  the 
throne  and  before  tlie  Lamb,  clothed  with  white  robes,  and  palms 
in  their  hands,"  Rev.  vii.  9.    "  White  robes,"  emblems  of 
purity,  and  *•  Palms  in  their  hands,"  the  tokens  of  victory  over 
sin;  and  this  pitrity,  and  this  victory,  the  happy  attainment  of 
<«a  great  multitude  wliich  no  man  could  number,"  and  this  great 
multitude  mm [iosei}        all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  tongues, 
and  peop/e."   i  think,  we  are  put  in  possession  of  evidence,  that 
esiablishes  beyond  a  doubt,  the  truth  of  the  apostolic  assertion, 
-that  *•  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation"  is  not,  and 
never  was  bounded  by  geographical  lines,  nor  confined  to  any 
.  description  of  mankind  !  'J'he  fact  disch>sed  by  the  great  Apos- 
tle in  this  text,  is  1  tliink,  a  positive  proof  that  the  love  of  God  is 
extended  to  all  his  ratiimal  family,  that  the  means  of  salvation 
are  as  unlimited  as  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Deity,  The 
doctrine  of  my  opponent  is  at  war,  not  only  with  the  sentiments 
of  the  inspired  writers,  but  with  facts  w  hich  d'  monstrate  in  the 
clearest  manner,  the  unbounded  mercy  and  infinite  justice,  of 
our  adorable  Creator. 

It  was  an  aphorism  of  our  blessed  Lord,  "  By  their/ruifs  ye 
shall  know  them.  Men  do  not  gather  grapes  of  tliorns,  nor  figs 
of  thistles."  When  1  see  an  individual  or  a  nation,  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  of  goodness,  mercy,  temperance,  patience,  jus- 
tice, and  charity,  there  methinks  I  see  the  work  of  God's  good 
Spirit,  and  I  am  willing  to  acknowledge  these,  however  they 
may  differ  from  me  in  doctrines  or  opinions,  as  tlie  subjects  of 
Divine  Grace.  <*  Every  good  and  perfect  gift  cometh  down 
from  above."  It  is  impossible  for  our  weak  human  nature,  un- 
assisted by  Divine  Grace,  to  produce  these  good  fruits  !  My 
opponent  holds  the  doctrine  of  »*  Man's  total  depravity."  How 
then  can  he  reconcile  his  doctrine  with  the  fact,  That  those  who 
never  had  the  Scriptures,  nor  any  outw^ard  knowledge  of 
Christ,  have  been  eminently  virtuous  ?  I  think  it  can  only  be 
reconciled  by  admitting,  that  these  pious  heathen  were  largely 
assisted  by  Divine  Grace  ! 

The  measure  of  God's  mercy  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  his 
outward  gifrs  and  blessings  !  He  gives  these  to  **  the  evil  and 
to  the  good."  He  has  given  the  Scriptures  to  as  ungrateful 
and  rebellious  a  people  as  ever  existed,  not  excepting  the  Jews  ! 
He  has  withheld  them  from  millions,  who  without  them  have 
manifested  more  of  tiie  fruits  of  sincere  piety  and  devotion, 
3^ 


266 


than  those  who  have  had  this  blessing !  This  position  may  be 
considered  by  many  as  problematical,  if  not  untenable.  A  re- 
ference to  historical  facts  will,  I  think,  confirm  it.  I  am  aware 
of  the  influence  that  interested  men  have  had,  to  produce  on 
their  hearers  a  different  sentiment.  Many  of  the  Authors  of 
Books,  Pamphlets,  and  Tracts,  have  been  on  one  side  of  the 
question.  We  have  had  little  but  exparte  evidence.  There 
are  two  heathen  nations,  however,  ot  whose  virtues  we  have 
had  some  small  testimony — to  which  I  shall  refer,  after  giving 
a  very  imperfect  view  of  the  vices  and  enormities  of  those  who 
hnve  been  favoured  with  the  Scriptures  ! 

It  was  not  long  after  the  exit  of  the  Apostles,  that  professing 
Christians,  with  the  Scriptures  in  their  hands,  and  professing 
to  be  guided  by  them  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  quarrel- 
ed and  shed  human  blood  in  torrents  on  the  imm  trifling  differ- 
ence of  sentiment. — Ii  was  sufBcient  cause  for  the  perpetra- 
tion of  the  greatest  cruelties  that  one  thought  Easter  should 
be  celebrated  on  one  day,  while  his  brother  thought  it  ought  to 
be  celebrated  on  another. — It  was  an  occasion  of  the  bitterest 
enmity,  that  one  believed  in  the  Unltif  of  the  Deity,  whilst  the 
other  thought  that  God  was  composed  of  parts,  and  hence  as 
well  as  from  other  causes,  the  m<)St  violent  and  outrageous 
measures  were  pursued  that  ever  disgraced  human  nature, 
and  hence  it  is  doubtful,  whether  Christians  by  profession. 
Lave  not  shed  much  more  human  blood,  than  was  ever  shed  by 
the  heathens  on  religious  differences!  Hanging,  burning  and 
gibbeting  in  their  simple  forms  are  mercies  in  comparis(m  of 
the  tortures  which  have  been  inflicted  by  Christian  professors 
on  each  other,  merely  on  account  of  a  difference  of  opinion  with 
respect  to  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  <*  the  only  and  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  as  affirmed  by  my  opponent, 
and  without  which,  as  he  affirms,  there  is  no  salvation.  And 
these  outrages  upon  humanity  have  not  been  confined  to  one 
sect  of  Christians — there  is  hardly  any  sect  wholly  free  from 
the  foul  charge  ! ! !  The  Catholics  under  their  Pope — the  Cal- 
"vinists  under  their  founder — tlie  Episcopalians  und»'r  their 
Bishops  and  Arch-bishops,  whether  Lutheran  or  Calvinistic, 
and  the  Presbyterians  under  their  respective  sources  of  autho- 
rity and  power. — And  this  is  not  all,  their  Clergy,  the  highest 
officers  in  their  churches,  have  manifested  a  cruelty,  an  ava- 
rice, an  ambition,  a  sensuality,  wholly  unparalleled  by  heathen 
professors,  in  some  instances  claiming  a  supremacy  over  their 
temporal  rulers,  in  others  making  use  of  the  temporal  autho- 
rity to  force  people  into  a  conformity  with  doctrines  the  most 
absurd  ;  and  derogatory,  not  only  to  the  character  of  the  Deity, 
but  to  the  plainest  maxims  of  Scripture  and  common  sense. 


267 


Now  where  will  we  find  in  modern  history  any  parallel  in 
atrocity  to  these  ?  Wlirre  will  we  find  any  heathen  nati  )n  who 
was  so  depraved  as  to  persecute  and  shed  the  hii'od  of  a  bro- 
ther for  a  difference  of  opinion  ?  If  our  Lord's  criterion  be  a 
correct  one,  •*  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them" — liow  shall 
we  jud^^e  of  a  people  who  have  brought  forth  so  plentiful  a  crop 
from  thorns  and  thistles  as  Christendom  has? — And  yet,  for- 
sooth, all  God's  mercy  is  to  be  confined  within  the  number 
of  the  selfish,  cruel,  avaricious,  sensual  professors  of  Chris- 
tianity ! !  !  Oh  what  presumption  ! — Poor  debased  Christen- 
dom— Instead  of  bowing  herself  to  the  earth,  and  laying  her 
mouth  in  the  very  dust — she  dares  recount  her  good  works  be- 
fore the  Omniscient — she  claims  an  exclusive  right  to  heaven — 
rings  her  weekly,  her  daily  account  of  her  alms  deeds,  in 
the  ears  of  God  and  man  ! ! ! — and  is  likely,  I  fear,  to  retire 
from  the  public  display  of  her  virtues,  less  justified  in  the  di- 
i.  vine  sight,  than  the  poor  creature  who  dares  not  so  much  as 
lift  his  eyes  to  heaven,  but  smiting  his  breast,  begs  only  for 
mercy  from  the  f(»untain  of  universal  Love  ! 

My  opponent  seems  much  offended  at  my  saying  that  "  Chris- 
tendom talis  behind  the  very  heathen  in  the  essentials  of  true 
JaithV  By  "  true  faith,"  Amicus"  does  not  understand  that 
faith  which  satisfies  itself  with  preaching  and  singing,  eating 
bread  and  drinking  wine,  dipping  and  sprinkling  people.  Of 
this  faith,  I  believe  the  professors  of  Christianity  may  boast  a 
greater  share  than  any  other  people — except  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees.  It  is  a  faith  that  may  be  attained  without  the  mor- 
tification of  a  single  passion,  the  sacrifice  of  one  darling  lust. 
By  true  faith,  i  mean,  that  **  Faith  that  worketh  by  love 
Gal.  v.  6.— that  faith  thsit  actuates  <*  pious  heathens"  to  deeds  o£ 
mercy  and  acts  of  charity — I  say  pious  heathen,  without  the 
least  fear  that  any  liberal  Christian  will  deem  the  terms  irra- 
tional or  <♦  contradictory."  To  say  there  are  pious  heathen,'* 
"  Paul"  thinks  as  great  an  offence  against  propriety  of  speech,  as 
to  say  there  are  such  things  as  «  wise  fools" — this  may  be,  yet 
I  do  not  think  it  would  be  a  very  difiicult  matter  to  shew  that 
both  these  kinds  of  people  are  to  be  found  within  the  human 
family  !  The  «*  essentials  of  true  faith,''  are  ^oorf  works.  «  Faith,'' 
says  the  Apostle,  «  without  works  is  dead,'"*  James  ii.  17.  *<  By 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  says  our  Lord.  This  crite^ 
Hon,  sanctioned  as  it' is,  by  divine  authority,  is  certainly  the 
best  that  could  possibly  be  given  to  man  for  ascertaining  the 
merits  of  his  brother,  yet  my  opponent  prefers  one  of  his  own 
making !  !  1 

In  order  to  shew  that  those  fruits  by  which  we  may  distin- 
guish the  real  adopted  child  of  God  from  the  vain  boaster  of 


his  own  works  are  not  confined  to  those  wlio  have  the  Scrip- 
tures, 1  will  appeal  to  facts,  and  in  this  appeal  I  have  no  doubt 
of  being  able  to  shew  that  while  professing  Christians  of  the 
highest  stamp  have  produced  the  disgraceful  fruits  of  the 
<*  thorn,"  and  the  **  thistle,"  that  portion  of  God's  famil)'  whom 
these  high  professors  call  heathens,  savages,  barbarians  and 
idolaters,  have  far  outstripped  them  in  divine  works  of  mercy, 
justice,  and  truth, 

I  suppose  it  will  be  admitted,  that  there  is  no  nation  on  earth, 
(except  it  be  the  Americans)  who  boast  more  of  their  religious 
attainments  than  the  British.  These  high  professors,  these 
pretended  disciples  of  that  religion  which  breathes  the  lan- 
guage of  peace  on  earth  and  good  will  to  men,  witli  the  Bible 
in  one  hand  and  the  sword  in  the  other,  invaded  the  territory 
of  the  unoffending  Hindoos,  burned  their  towns  and  hamlets, 
butchered  and  starved  innumerable  multitudes  of  the  rightful 
owners  of  the  soil,  and  finally  reduced  sixty  or  eighty  millions 
of  people  to  a  state  ot  subjection  or  vassalage.  And  this  is  not 
all,  after  making  them  taste  the  bitter  fruit  of  that  religion 
which  prevails  throughout  Ciiristendom,  and  is  falsely  called 
the  Christian  Religion — after  forcing  them  to  wear  the  yoke  of 
political  slavery,  they  set  every  engine  to  work  to  bring  them 
under  the  more  odious  burden  of  religious  domination,  Clau- 
dius Buchanan,  a  man  known  in  tlie  literary  world  as  an  au- 
thor, seeing  the  vast  sums  continually  flowing  into  the  civil 
purse,  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  clergy  had  been  **  ne- 
glected in  the  daily  ministration"  of  wealth,  squeezed  from  the 
labour  of  the  po  or  oppressed  natives,  and  therefore  writes  **  a 
Memoir  on  the  expediency  of  an  Ecclesiastical  Establishment 
for  British  India."  To  those  who  understand  what  an  Eccle- 
siastical Establishment  means,  any  explanation  of  his  motives 
is  unnecessary  ;  but  to  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  our  highly 
favoured  land,  long  exempted  from  the  physical  power  of  the 
Priesthood,  it  may  be  proper  to  say,  that  an  Ecclesiastical  Es- 
tablishment means,  a  power  vested  in  the  Clergy  to  force  from 
every  man  (who  will  not  voluntarily  devote  his  time  and  labour 
to  support  a  luxurious  set  of  worldlings)  the  tenth  part  of  his 
produce,  besides  various  other  demands  of  a  religious,  or  ra- 
ther irreligious  nature. 

Now  what  is  the  character  of  this  nation  whose  territory  we 
Christians  invaded,  whose  inhabitants  we  butchered,  and  those 
we  did  not  butcher  have  enslaved  ?  Truly,  if  we  take  their 
character  from  those,  whose  interest  it  is  to  villify  theiUf  they 
must  be  a  very  idolatrous,  immoral  people  !  Through  the  me- 
dium of  tracts,  pamphlets  and  prints  got  up  by  men  who  were 
deeply  C07tcerned,  to  reap  the  fruits  of  Hindoo  industry,  we  have 


369 


liail  the  most  disgusting  picture  of  this  poor  people,  that  perhaps 
was  ever  drawn  of  human  nature — and  yet  a  picture  very  un- 
Jikc  the  original,  if  we  may  credit  numberless  disinterested 
authors  who  have  from  a  long  and  intimate  knowledge  of  that 
people,  had  thi^  best  opportunities  of  knowing  them. 

Abulfazel,  Secretary  to  Akbar,  the  Moii;uI  Emperor,  who 
was  deemed  one  of  the  most  learned  and  best  writers  of  the 
East,  and  who  had  much  opportunity  of  knowing  the  Hindoos, 
gives  the  foHowing  testimony  of  their  character :  *»  They  one 
and  all,  believe  in  the  unity  of  the  Godliead,  and  although 
they  hold  inmges  in  high  veneration,  yet  they  are  by  no  means 
Idolaters,  as  the  ignorant  suppose.  1  have  myself  frequently 
discoursed  on  the  subject  with  many  learned  and  upright  men 
©1  this  religion,  and  comprehend  their  doctrine,  which  is,  that 
Images  are  only  representatives  of  celestial  beings,  to  whom 
they  turn  themselves  while  at  prayer,  to  prevent  their  thoughts 
from  wandering."  Again,  says  he:  **  they  are  religious,  affable, 
courteous  to  strangers,  cheerful,  enamoured  (  f  knowledge, 
lovers  of  justice,  given  to  retirement,  able  in  business,  grateful 
for  favouis,  admirers  of  truth,  and  of  unbounded  fidelity  in  all 
their  dealings."  What  a  noble  character  is  this  !  Happy  would 
it  be  for  Christendom,  if  one  half  as  much  could  truly  be  said 
of  her ;  and  yet  we  want  to  convert  the  Hindoos  to  our  kind  of 
religion ! 

Jn  confirmation  of  this  character  of  the  Hindoos  given  by 
Abulfazel,  a  Bengal  officer,  in  a  pamplet  describing  their  cha- 
racter, makes  the  following  statement :  '*  An  experience  of 
seven  and  twenty  years  will  enable  me  to  do  justice  to  their 
unexampled  honesty  and  fidelity.  Will  it  be  believed  in 
Europe,  that  a  gentleman  having  twenty  servants  in  his  house 
shall  entrust  them  with  the  care  of  his  liquors,  plate,  money, 
jewels,  &c.  of  all  which,  the  keys  remain  in  their  hands,  and 
shall  leave  his  house  for  a  month  or  more,  and  on  his  return 
find  every  article  as  he  left  it,  undissipated,  untouched  and  un- 
impaired?— I  have  myself  been  in  this  predicament — have 
had  in  my  house  at  one  time,  more  than  eighty  dozen  of  wine, 
three  or  four  hundred  pounds  in  gold  and  silv*  r,  besides  plate 
and  linen,  all  under  the  care  of  my  Hindoo  servants,  who 
kept  the  keys  of  every  article — yet  I  cannot  witfi  a  safe 
conscience  charge  any  of  th"se  servants  with  having  ever 
purloined  a  single  bottle  of  vine,  the  smallest  article  of 
plate,  or  as  much  as  a  rupee  from  the  money  thus  dep<)sited  ! ! ! 
Let  me  then  ask  the  candid  reader,  let  me  ask  Mr.  Buchanan 
himself,  who  uninfluenced  by  the  prospect  of  professional  ad- 
vantage  had  possibly  been  less  willing  to  vilify  the  Hindoosj 
whether  in  Great  Britain,  under  such  obvious  circumstances 


270 


of  temp^^ation,  the  master's  property  would  have  been  safe  for 
a  s'ln^ia  day  ?" — *»1  trust  that  while  sobriety,  honesty,  temper- 
ance, and  fidelity  are  held  estimable  among  mankind,  the  hum- 
ble possessor  of  these  virtues  among  the  Hindoos  will  be  deem- 
ed not  unworthy  even  of  Christian  emulation  So  far  my 
author,  who  I  think  shews  that  as  *«  men  do  not  gather  grapes 
of  thorns,  nor  figs  or  thistles,''  the  Hindoos,  if  condemned  in 
t(»to  to  everlasting  torments,  will  not  be  condemned  for  being  a 
worse  people  than  their  Christian  oppressors! 

On  turning  our  eye  to  scenes  that  have  been  exhibited  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  we  see  perhaps  equal  cause  to  abhor 
the  conduct  of  Christian  professors  towards  an  innocent  unof- 
fending people !  We  see  that  men  who  fled  from  persecution 
and  cruelty,  inflicted  on  them  by  their  fellow  Christians,  came 
on  our  shores,  and  after  a  friendly,  kind,  and  hospitable  recep- 
tion by  the  natives,  begin  and  carry  on  the  work  of  murder 
and  destruction  against  their  benefactors,  until  whole  tribes, 
men,  women  and  children,  were  swept  from  the  face  of  the 
earth  !  Now  if  the  tree  is  to  be  known  by  its  fruits,  who  were 
the  barbarians  in  this  case  ?  Let  the  reader  answer  the  ques- 
tion to  himself. 

And  what  was  the  character  of  the  natives  of  this  country, 
when  they  were  treated  with  common  justice  by  <*  that  good 
man,  William  Penn  Kind,  benevolent,  hospitable,  charita- 
ble, grateful,  and  so  faithful  to  their  engagements,  that  during 
seventy  years  they  never  forfeited  their  pledge,  never  violated 
their  word,  so  that  it  has  been  observed  that  Penn's  Treaty 
with  the  Indians,  ratified  without  an  oath,  is  the  only  one  that 
never  was  broken. 

And  yet,  according  to  my  opponent,  these  people  were  des- 
titute of  divine  grace — they  produced  the  fruit  of  the  good  tree 
without  any  goodness  in  them — in  other  words,  contrary  to  our 
Lord's  express  declaration,  *<  Men  do  gather  grapes  of  thorns^ 
and  figs  of  thistles  ! ! !" 

But  says  my  opponent,  « there  is  so  much  Quakerism  in  the 
world,  such  an  obstinate  notion  that  the  heathen  already  have  sa- 
ving light,  that  the  divine  Commands  are  not  obeyed,  the  divine 
benevolence  is  not  seconded,  and  the  perdition  of  the  heathen^  lies 
not  on  God,  but  on  your  Society  and  other  enemies  of  Missions.'* 
In  this  ebullition  of  zeal,  **  Paul"  has  forgot  one  material  point 
— he  has  omitted  to  prove  that  the  heathen  do  go  to  perdition  ! 
and  before  this  is  proved,  he  must  prove  that  our  Lord  and  the 
Evangelists  and  Apostles  were  totally  in  an  error  on  this  sub- 
ject. <*  Amicus"  has  produced  many  of  the  plainest,  most  explicit 
texts  of  Scripture,  to  prove  that  "  the  grace  of  God  that  bring- 
eth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men." — «Paul"  has  not  pro- 


271 


dueed  ono  clear  passage  from  the  sacred  writings  to  prove  the 
contrar}^,  nor  can  he  ever  do  it — and  therefore  he  must  still  go 
on  with  his  strained  inferences,  sarcastic  remarks,  and  sophis- 
tical deductions,  some  of  which  1  intend  to  notice  in  my  next 
number.  AMICUS. 

Saturday,  April  27,  1822. 

LETTER  XXV. 

^'Idolaters  shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  that  hurneth  with  Jirt 
and  brimstone;  which  is  the  second  deathJ**    Rev.  xxi.  8. 

Until  Amicus"  can  produce  one  heathen  who  was  not  an 
idolater,  he  must  either  give  up  his  hope  for  them,  or  give  up 
the  Bible.  For  idolatry  is  in  Scripture  described  as  the  great- 
est of  all  abominations  in  the  sight  of  God.  Therefore,  when 
he  talks  so  much  about  the  *  virtues,'  the  «  piety,'  the  *  truth, 
justice  and  mercy,*  of  the  heathen,  1  ask  him  to  name  a  nation 
or  an  individual  not  guilty  of  open  and  habitual  idolatry.  As 
murder  implies  a  disposition  to  commit  all  lesser  crimes ;  so 
idolatry  implies  a  heart  at  enmity  with  the  only  true  God  and 
disposed  to  commit  all  minor  sins.  It  is  in  vain  therefore  to 
talk  of  the  <  virtues'  or  the  *  piety'  of  a  man  who  is  guilty  of 
this  most  gross  offence.  But  i  will  answer  his  objections  more 
particularly. 

Objection  1. — "John  saw  a  multitude  which  no  man  could 
number,  of  all  nations,  kindred  and  people,  standing  before  the 
thnme,"  &c.  Rev.  vii.  9.  Any  one  who  will  consult  the  passage 
will  perceive  that  this  refers  to  events  which  took  place  under 
the  •♦sixth  seal,"  or  just  before  the  reign  of  Constantine ;  and 
is  a  prediction  of  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  in  that  day.  The 
Apt)srles  and  their  successors,  unlike  your  Society,  went  forth 
as  Missionaries  to  all  nations,  and  the  consequence  was,  some 
of  all  nations  then  existing  were  saved.  The  Millennium  also 
will  verify  this  passage,  by  bringing  in  multitudes  from  all 
corners  of  the  world.  But  you  might  as  well  say  there  is  a 
^Millennium  in  every  age,  or  that  there  will  be  a  Millennium 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  as  to  say  that  this  text  is 
true  of  every  age,  or  that  some  of  all  kindreds  will  be  saved 
without  the  Bible. 

Obj.  2. — <*  Some  who  had  no  external  knowledge  of  Christ 
have  been  eminently  virtuous,  and  therefore  must  have  been 
largely  assisted  by  Divine  grace."  Are  not  many  of  the  Deists 
of  our  day  equally  «<  virtiwus?'^  And  will  you  say  that  these  are 


272 


Christians,  or  endowed  with  saving  "  grace  I  challenge  yoii 
to  name  a  heathen  who  had  more  consistent  notions  of  God,  or 
showed  more  regard  for  Revelation,  or  for  Jesus  Christ,  than 
many  acknowledged  Deists  of  our  day.  And  can  these  be  saved  ? 
say,  **  Amicus." 

Obj.  3. — •<  Where  shall  we  find  a  heathen  nation  so  depraved 
as  to  persecute  and  shed  the  blood  of  a  brother  for  a  difference 
of  opinion?"  Has  "Amicus"  forgotten  the  Ten  Roman  Persecu- 
tions, and  the  millions  of  Christians  that  werje  robbed,  banished, 
hurned  and  murdered  during  the  first  three  centuries,  by  these 
tender  hearted  pious  heathens  ?  True,  they  seldom  persecuted 
one  another ;  being  of  one  family,  why  should  they  quarrel  ? 
The  Greeks  and  Romans  tolerated  all  heathen  religions,  bore 
with  idolatry  in  every  shape ;  but  the  moment  Chris-vianity 
appeared,  kings,  phih)sophers,  priests  and  people  combined 
their  arms  against  her !  Wonderful  evidence  of  their  <«  virtue 
and  piety!"  Just  so  in  your  Society,  Pelagians,  Universaiists, 
Socinians,  Deists  and  Atheists  can  dwell  together  in  amity, 
each  holding  that  it  is  **  no  matter  what  a  man  believes  so  he  is 
sincere;^'  and  every  speaker  declaring  what  doctrine  he  please, 
provided  he  does  not  preach  the  Gospel!  But  should  the 
Apostles  themselves  appear  among  you  and  preach  their  old 
doctrines,  you  would  all  say  Sit  ye  down,  ye  arc  not  called  to 
minister," — and  that  charity  which  is  readily  indulged  for 
heathen  and  infidels,  would  be  denied  to  the  followers  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Obj.  4. — "These  heathen  have  far  outstripped  your  high 
professors  in  divine  works  of  mercy,  justice  and  truth.  There 
are  two  nations  who  have  been  without  the  Scriptures,  who 
have  brought  forth  more  of  the  fruits  of  sincere  piety  and  de- 
votion than  those  who  have  had  the  Bible, — the  Hindoos  and 
our  Western  Indians,'^  With  the  invasion  of  India  by  the 
East  India  Company  we  have  nothing  more  to  do  than  with  the 
wars  of  Bonaparte ;  they  are  a  set  of  infidel  merchants  who 
opposed  the  admission  of  Christianity  into  India  with  all  their 
might.  In  1813,  when  they  applied  to  the  British  Parliament 
for  the  renewal  of  their  charter,  that  Body  refused,  unless 
they  would  consent  to  an  additional  article,  permitting  Missio- 
naries to  reside  in  India,  so  long  as  they  behaved  peaceably. 
The  moti(m  was  opposed,  upon  the  Quaker  principle,  that  *♦  the 
Hindoo  religion  was  as  good  as  ours."  It  was  during  this  de- 
bate, in  which  Sir  Henry  M(mtgomery  and  Mr.  Lushington 
took  the  lead,  that  the  latter  gentleman,  (the  <*  Bengal  officer" 
whom  you  quote,)  an  avowed  infidel,  contradicted  the  state- 
ments of  Dr.  Buchanan,  and  made  the  assertions  you  have 
quoted.   Dr.  Buchanan,  the  holy  man  whose  motives  you  join 


273 


w  ith  infidels  to  vility,  but  whose  memory  will  be  dear  to  India 
long  after  Quakerism  shall  have  been  abolished,  and  hostility 
to  missions  shall  have  ceased, — though  on  his  sick  and  dying 
bed,  wrote  a  memorial  and  made  a  statement  of  fads,  w  Inch  con- 
vinced the  Parliament  and  confounded  his  adversaries.  So 
much  for  the  statement  of  your  ♦'Bengal  officer." 

AhulJaxeU  the  other  <*  disinterested  author,"  whom  you 
quote,  was  Secretary  to  the  great  Mogul, — in  a  station  where 
we  do  not  generally  look  either  for  correct  sentiments,  or  cor- 
rect practice  in  religion.  He  was  moreover  a  Mahometan,  an 
idolater  himself,  and  therefore  little  credit  is  due  to  his  testi- 
mony,— especially  when  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  that  of  Sir 
William  Jones,  who  spent  much  time  in  investigating  the  Sa- 
cred Books  and  institutions  of  the  Hindoos, — in  direct  contra- 
diction to  that  of  lord  Tdgnmouth,  who  was  for  some  time 
Governor  General  of  Bengal,  is  now  President  of  the  Bible 
Society  in  England,  is  one  of  the  assistant  editors  of  the  Chris- 
tian Observer,  and  a  warm  advocate  for  missions  to  India;  in 
contradiction  also,  to  the  testimony  of  Charles  Grant,  one  of 
the  best  men  in  England,  a  member  of  the  British  Parliament, 
and  who  has  written  a  masterly  Memoir  on  India, — as  well  as 
contradictory  to  that  of  all  the  Missionaries.  Let  the  reader 
weigh  the  testimony  of  an  avowed  infidel  and  a  Mahometan, 
against  the  following  testimony  of  men  whose  veracity  cannot 
be  impeached, 

Dr»  Buchanan  says,  the  two  prominent  characteristics  of  the 
Hindoo  superstition,  are  «  Impurity  and  Blood  illustrating 
his  declaration  by  facts  which  he  himself  w'itnessed.  William 
Ward  who  has  been  twenty-three  years  in  India,  and  whose  testi- 
mony if  false  may  be  easily  refuted,  states,  that  though  the  more 
enlightened  Hindoos  admit  the  idea  of  One  God,  they  dofiot  think 
him  an  object  of  worship^  And  accordingly  among  100,000,000 
of  people,  there  is  not  to  be  found  one  temple  consecrated  to  the 
One  God."  They  speak  of  their  ^«  330  millions  of  deities,"— 
and  some  of  these  deities  are  «sin  personified,"  It  is  remark- 
able that  not  one  of  all  their  numerous  idols,  represents  a  rirfwe.' 
The  Greeks  and  Romans  did  dedicate  temples  to  Truth,  Jus- 
tice, Chastity,  ^cc.  but  I  defy  Amicus"  or  any  other  advocate 
for  Hindoo  piety,"  to  mention  the  name  of  a  single  Hindoo 
idol  representative  of  a  virtue. — or  a  single  deity  of  a  virtuous 
character !  Their  very  gods,"  says  Mr,  Ward,  are  monsters 
of  vice, — their  worship  is  full  of  abominable  impurities,— their 
priests  ringleaders  in  crime — their  Scriptures  encourage  pride, 
impurity,  falsehood  and  murder,  and  their  heaven  is  a  brothel 

Nor  do  any  of  the  Hindoos  die  with  the  hope  of  future  happi- 
**xcent  those  who  drown  or  hum  themselves."   ^*  Bj  a 


274 


future  state,  a  Hindoo  understands  nothing  more  than  trans- 
migration;^' and  common  persons,  therefore,  when  dying,  <*have 
no  hope  but  of  passing  into  the  body  of  some  reptile."  (v. 
Ward's  Farewell  Letters,  Let.  5.)  To  speak  of  the  fruits  of 
"mercy"  in  a  country  where  such  a  tiling  as  an  Alms  House 
or  a  Hospital,  or  a  Benevolent  Society  never  was  known, — 
where  children  are  allowed  by  their  religion  to  txpt-se  *heir 
aged  parents  to  the  Ganges, — where  mothers  throw  their  in- 
fants to  the  alligators, — where  the  eldest  son  kindles  the  fune- 
ral pile  of  a  widowed  mother, — where  children  tread  the  earth 
into  the  grave  around  a  living  parent, — where  idols  are  pdeased 
with  human  blood, — and  wliere  the  multitude  set  up  a  joyful 
shout  when  infatuated  victims  sacrifice  their  lives  ;  to  produce 
these  as  **  works  of  mercy,"  shows  a  curious  taste ! 

But  hear  another  witness.  The  Mbe  Dubois,  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic, who  resided  many  years  in  India,  whose  work  was  ap- 
proved by  Col.  Wilkes,  Governor  of  the  Mysore  country,  was 
purchased  by  the  Madras  Government  for  2000  pagodas,  was 
afterwards  published  by  the  East  India  Company,  and  recom- 
mended by  some  of  their  members  as  "  the  most  comprehen- 
sive and  minute  account  extant  in  any  European  language  of 
the  manners  of  the  Hindoos,"  gives  the  following  testimony. 
After  stating  that  <Uhere  is  but  little  respect  for  parental  au- 
thority," and  little  filial  affection,  he  says  :  "  when  the  Brah- 
mans  find  themselves  in  trouble,  there  is  no  falsehood  or  perjury 
ihey  will  not  employ  to  extricate  themselves.  And  they  are 
not  ashamed  to  declare  openly,  that  untruth  and  false  swearing 
are  virtuous  when  they  tend  to  our  own  advantage.  When 
such  horrible  morality  is  taught  by  the  theologians  of  India,  is 
it  to  be  wondered  at  tliat  falsehood  should  be  so  predominant 
among  the  people  Xi3LgQ  ±07 ,  *^There  is  no  country  on  earth 
where  the  sanction  of  an  oath  is  so  little  respected ;"  page  197. 
(So  much  for  their  «  truth  !")  The  feelings  of  commiseration  and 
pity  for  the  sufferings  of  others  never  enter  a  Brahman's  heart. 
He  will  see  an  unliappy  being  perish  on  the  road,  or  even  at 
his  own  gate,  if  belonging  to  another  cast,  and  will  not  stir  to 
help  him  to  a  drop  of  water,  though  it  were  to  save  his  life  :" 
page  197.  (So  much  for  their  **  mercy.")  "The  greater 
part  of  their  institutions,  civil  and  religious  appear  to  be  con- 
trived to  nourish  and  stimulate  that  passion,"  (incontinence) 
page  191.  "  Whatever  their  religion  sets  before  them  tends  to 
encourage  their  vices,  and  consequently  all  their  senses,  pas- 
sions and  interests,  are  leagued  in  its  favour,"  page  390.  He 
then  speaks  of  their  "  dancing  girls,"  the  "  indecent  figures" 
engraved  on  their  temples,  and  their  "  monstrous  obscenities;" 
and  closes  by  saying,  that  "  a  religion  more  shamefiil  or  indecent 


27B 


has  never  existed  among  a  civilized  people.  Licentiousness 
prevails  almost  universally  without  shame  or  remorse.  Every 
excess  is  countenanced  by  the  irregular  lives  of  their  gods,  and  by 
the  rites  which  their  worship  prescribes  420,  421.  The  above 
are  extracts  from  a  work  recommended  by  the  enemies  of  mis- 
sions. Again  ;  Daniel  Poor,  one  of  our  American  Missionaries 
to  Ceylon,  a  man  whose  character  for  piety  and  veracity  is 
well  known  in  this  country,  in  a  letter  to  Jordan  Lodge  in  the 
State  of  Vermont,  says :  "  The  gods  wori5hipped  by  this  people 
are  numerous,  and  the  character  of  the  best  of  them  is  abominable. 
The  people  here  are  professedly  worshippers  of  the  devil.  Their 
fear  of  him  is  great,  and  their  offerings  to  him  many.  In  every 
place  temples  to  him  are  erected ;  there  are  as  many  as  twelve 
or  fifteen  in  this  parish  in  which  tiiis  diabolical  worship  is  offered. 
And  finally,  the  majority  of  the  people  bear  the  names  of  the 
different  demons.  Yes,  the  very  names  by  which  this  people 
are  called,  the  character  of  their  gods,  the  nature  of  their 
worship,  their  maxims,  customs  and  practices,  unitedly  bear 
-  testimony  to  the  melancholy  fact,  that  this  people  are  in  bon- 
dage to  the  Prince  of  darkness."  Boston  Recorder,  1819, 
p.  200. 

Such  are  the  testimonies  of  men  who  are  neither  infidels 
nor  Mahometans,  but  holy  <»  disinterested''  men,  who  like  the 
Apostles  of  old  have  taken  their  lives  in  their  hands,  gone  to 
an  unhealthy  climate  to  **  open  the  eyes  of  the  Gentiles,  and  to 
turn  them  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God."  But  to  rem*Te 
all  objections,  I  will  bring  testimony  from  men  whose  piety  will 
not  be  troublesome  to  you — men  of  mere  literature.  The  Asia- 
tic Society  in  their  Researches,  state  that  **  the  barbarism  of 
the  interior  nations  of  Sumatra,  Borneo,  and  other  islands,  al- 
most exceeds  belief.  It  is  usual  for  the  Batta  tribes  to  kill  and 
eat  their  criminals  and  prisoners  of  war.  And  they  them- 
selves declare,  that  they  frequently  eat  their  own  relations  when 
aged  and  infirm  ;  and  that  not  so  much  to  gratify  their  appe- 
tite, as  to  perform  a  pious  ceremony."  "  The  most  singular 
feature  in  the  character  of  the  Alfoers  is  the  necessity  imposed 
on  every  person,  of  sometime  in  his  life  imbruing  his  hands  in 
human  blood  !  And  in  general  among  all  their  tribes,  no  per- 
son is  permitted  to  marry,  till  he  can  show  the  skull  of  a  man 
whom  he  has  slaughtered.  They  eat  the  flesh  of  their  enemies 
like  the  Battas^  and  drink  out  of  their  skulls;  and  the  orna- 
ments of  their  houses  are  human  skulls  and  teeth !"  Asiatic 
Resf^arches,  vol.  x.  pp.  203,  217.  However  your  Society  may 
look  upon  these  things,  Christians  generally  would  hardly  look 
on  them  as  "  divine  works  of  mercy." 

But  perhaps  other  nations  are  better.   Let  us  see.  The 


Versians  hovdtv  on  India,  what  is  their  tiharacter  ?  Major  Scott 
Waring^  who  spent  some  time  in  that  country,  says :  The  man^ 
ners  of  the  Persians  are  formed  in  a  great  degree,  on  the 
principles  of  Lord  Chesterfield  ;  they  conceive  it  their  duty  to 
please,  and  to  effect  this  they  forget  all  sentiments  of  honour  and 
good faith.^'  They  are  excellent  companions,  but  detestable 
characters,^'  «  A  people  given  to  a  life  of  rapine  will  necessa- 
rily have  a  number  of  words  to  express  the  various  modes  of 
plunder;  and  excepting  the  Mahrattas,  (your  virtuous*' 
Hindoos)  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  language  on  earth  in 
which  the  different  gradations  of  robbery  to  the  perpetration  of 
the  most  atrocious  crimes  are  more  distinctly  marked."  "  The 
Persians  have  but  a  faint  notion  of  gratitude^  for  they  cannot 
conceive  that  any  one  should  be  guilty  of  generosity,  without 
some  sinister  motive."  Philosophers  have  held  it  for  a  maxim, 
that  the  most  notorious  liar  utters  a  hundred  truths  for  every 
felsehood.  This  is  not  the  case  in  Persia,  They  seem  unac- 
quainted with  the  beauty  of  truth,  and  only  think  of  it  when 
it  is  likely  to  advance  their  interest."  Tour  to  Shiras  by  E,  S. 
Waring^  Esq.  So  much  for  their  "  truth." 

Captain  PottingeTf  another  traveller,  who  resided  sometime 
in  Persia,  says  :  "  I  feel  inclined  to  look  upon  Persia  at  the  pre- 
sent day  to  be  the  very  fountain  head  of  every  species  of  cruelty, 
tyranny,  meanness,  injustice,  extortion  and  infamy,  that  can 
disgrace  and  pollute  human  nature,  and  have  ever  been  found 
in  any  age  or  nation."  Pottinger,  p.  212. 

Here  for  the  present  I  must  pause.  Let  the  reader  decide 
whether  Hindostan  and  the  adjacent  heathen  countries  have 
*<  more  of  the  essentials  of  true  faith,''  more  of  the  "  works  of 
mercy,  justice  and  truth,"  more  "  virtue,  piety  and  devotion," 
than  Christendom ;  and  judge  whether  the  Bible  would  not  be 
a  blessing,  and  the  Christian  religion  a  better  "  kind  of  reli- 
gion" than  that  under  which  they  now  suffer.  In  a  future  num- 
ber I  will  exhibit  something  of  the  religion  of  our  western  In- 
dians. The  more  this  subject  is  examined,  the  more  clearly 
it  will  appear  that  your  doctrine  of  Universal  Light  is  not 
more  contrary  to  Scripture,  than  it  is  to  fact.  PAUL. 

Saturday,  May  11,  1822. 

LETTER  XXVI. 

Woe  unto  them  that  call  evilgood^  and  good  evil;  that  put  dark- 
ness for  light,  and  light  for  darkness,^'    Isa.  v.  20. 

Facts  are  stubborn  things.  The  finest  theories  are  rent  by 
them  as  cobwebs  before  cannon  balls.    The  doctrine  that  there 


Ls  111  man  an  Universal  Light  which  s^ipercedes  the  necessity  of  the 
Bible,  the  ministry  and  missions,  is  so  pleasing  to  the  natural 
heart,  that  it  would  be  universally  believed,  were  it  not  contra- 
ry to  all  history  as  well  as  to  the  Word  of  God.  The  public 
will  excuse  my  dwelling  so  long  upon  this  topic,  as  it  is  the 
very  foundation  of  your  system.  If  this  be  undermined  your 
system  falls  of  course. 

Now  to  show  the  fallacy  of  your  fundamental  principle,  in 
the  first  place,  twenty -one  arguments  from  Scripture  were 
produced, — only  one  of  which  has  '*  Amicus''  attempted  to 
answer.  Twenty  arguments  remain  perfectly  unnoticed/  On 
the  other  hand,  1  appeal  to  the  public,  if  I  have  not  noticed  and 
given  a  consistent  answer  to  all  the  leading  objections  he  has 
brought ; — such  for  instance,  as  John  i.  9.  1  Cor.  xii.  7.  Rev. 
vii.  9.  Tit.  ii.  11,  12. 

In  the  second  place,  I  appealed  to  his  own  experience, 
and  challenged  him  to  prove  that  he  derived  his  knowledge  of 
Jesus  and  salvation  from  Internal  Light,  and  not  from  external 
revelation.  On  this  subject  also  several  honest  questions  were 
proposed,  all  of  which  remain  unnoticed  and  unanswered  ! 

In  the  third  place,  I  appealed  to  facts,  and  asked  :  «  Have 
not  the  nations  which  possess  the  Bible  incomparably  greater 
light  than  the  nations  which  are  destitute  ?"  He  did  not  at 
first,  deny  the  fact,  but  accounted  for  the  superior  light  of 
Christendom  on  the  principle  of  the  Bible  turning  men's 
attention  to  internal  light,"  as  if  a  candle  would  be  of  service  in 
discovering  the  swn.'  The  next  appeal  was  to  the  heathen 
world :  and  it  was  shown,  that  not  a  nation  nor  an  individual 
without  external  revelation,  ever  loved  and  served  the  only 
true  God.  He  was  challenged  to  produce,  and  has  been  unable 
to  produce  one  heathen  moralist  or  theologian,  inculcating  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity — one  who  spoke  of  Jesus  Christ  or  of  a 
Mediator, — one  who  relied  (or  justification  on  any  righteousness 
but  his  own, — one  who  taught  the  necessity  of  an  atonement, — 
one  who  taught  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  or  of  regener- 
ation,— one  who  lived  an  holy  life, — one  who  worshipped  the 
only  true  God,  or  one  who  was  not  a  gross  idolater  !  No  such 
nations  or  individuals  has  he  found.  He  has  indeed  quoted  the 
Hindoos  as  having  «  more  of  the  essentials  of  true  faith,"  more 
of  the  works  of  justice,  mercy  and  truth,"  than  the  nations 
of  Christendom.  But  the  testimony  of  his  Mahometan  and  in- 
fidel, who  had  felt  little  interest  in  the  subject,  and  made  but 
superficial  inquiry,  was  rebutted  by  the  testimony  of  various 
persons  of  unimpeachable  integrity,  who  devoted  years  to  the 
investigation  of  the  subject :  by  their  testimony  it  was  proved 
that  the  religion  of  this  your  chosen  nation  is  impure,  licentious, 
cruel  and  idolatrous  / 


278 


The  above  is  a  concise  view  of  our  present  argument.  And 
now  I  have  only  a  few  more  questions  to  ask,  and  then,  T  think, 
this  subject,  with  all  who  reverence  truth,  will  be  put  to  rest, 

I  wish  an  honest,  unevasive  answer  to  each  and  all  the  fol- 
lowin,^  questions  :  1.  Is  not  the  worship  of  the  one  true  God 
essential  to  true  yietij?  Is  n<»t  the  vvrship  of  idols  (or  of  images) 
a  fujM.iamenial  error?  »•  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
me.  Thou  shalt  not  makt'  unto  thyself  any  graven  image,  &c." 
Ex  XX.  3,  4.  Were  not  the  Israelites  more  severely  punished 
for  idolatry  than  for  any  other  sin?  And  is  not  idolatry  spo- 
ken of  through  the  Bible  as  the  principal  **  abomination''  of 
the  h<  athen  ?  And  now  have  you  produced,  or  can  you  produce 
an  individual,  not  to  say  a  nation,  destitute  of  the  Scriptures, 
not  guilty  of  .ross  idolatry  ? 

/  2.  Is  mt faith  in  Jesus  Christ  essential  to  salvation?  «*  Who- 
soever believeth  shall  be  saved;  and  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  Mark  xvi.  16.  (We  of  course  except  in- 
fants, idiots,  &c.  who  are  incapable  of  faith.)  But  can  an  adult 
be  saved  without  faith  in  Christ?  Vou  must  say  No,  or  con- 
tradict the  Bible  Now  you  have  not  produced,  you  cannot 
produce  one  instance  of  a  person  exercising  faith  in  Christ 
before  he  had  some  external  revelation  concerning  him.  For 
<«how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard?^' 
Unless  therefore,  you  can  show  that  faith  is  not  essential,  or 
-  that  faith  can  come  without  hearings  you  must  acknowledge 
that  without  the  Bible  men  have  not  sufficient  light. 

Is  there  any  other  name  than  that  of  Jesus  by  which  a 
sinner  can  be  saved  ?  *<  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any 
other  ;  for  there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men  whereby  we  must  be  saved Acts  iv.  Now  can  you 
name  a  single  heathen  (by  a  heathm  I  mean  one  entirely 
destitute  of  external  revelation)  who  showed  any  acquaintance 
with  Jesus  Cijrist?  If  not,  you  must  admit  the  heathen  have 
not  sufficient  light — and  your  principle  of  universal  light  is 
false :  I  appeal  to  fact 

4.  Is  there  any  other  foundation  upon  which  a  sinner  can 
build  with  safety,  except  the  Mediatorial  work  of  Jesus  Christ? 
*'For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which 
is  Jesus  Christ."  I  Cor.  iii.  11.  Now  produce  one  heathen 
who  built  on  thiss  foundation,  or  give  up  your  doctrine  of  Uni- 
versal Light. 

5.  Is  there  any  other  way  to  the  Father  but  through  Christ  ?  ^«  I 
am  the  way — no  man  cometh  unto  the  Fath*-r  but  by  me.''  John 
xiv.  6.  Now  either  show  me  one  heathen  who  approached  God 
through  Christ,  or  acknowledge  the  fallacy  of  your  doctrine. 

6.  Does  not  eternal  lift  depend  on  knowing  God  and  Jesus 


279 


Christ'^  "This  is  life  eternal,  that  they  might  know  thee  the 
only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hath  sent."  John 
xvii.  3.  Now  I  appeal  to  facts,  and  challenge  you  to  produce 
an  individual  heathen  who  knew  any  thing  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Neitlier  Socrates^  nor  Marcus  Jiurtlius  had  this  knowh-dge  of 
him.  Come,  "Amicus."  if  tlien  be  so  much  •»liglii,**  Sv>  much 
<<True  faith,"  so  much  piety  and  devoti'.n"  among  ihose  who 
have  not  tlie  Bible,  it  will  be  easy  to  produce  instances.  Come 
"  Amicus,''  urake  the  i-ial ;  give  us  ai  leasr  one  ^  xainple. 

After  Aou  have  ansv  ered  the  above  auctnnaL  quesuons, 
I  request  vou  To  nnswer  the  following  historical  ones.  Ph  ase 
account  for  the  followirsg  facts. 

1.  The  ign(>rance  and  impiety  of  those  in  Christian  liinds 
who  sivt  partially  deprivKi  of  the  Bible  and  the  o'her  exU  i  oal 
lights.  Go  into  those  districts  of  our  country  wl.ere  there  is 
no  public  worship,  no  preaching,  no  organized  Christian  So- 
ciety— or  go  into  those  families  in  this  bor*»ugh  who  neglect  the 
Bible,  (if  they  have  it  in  their  houses)  who  neglect  preaching 
and  other  means  of  external  light, — and  witness  their  igno- 
rance and  wickedness.  Talk  to  them  on  the  subject  of  salva- 
tion, they  are  almost  as  ignorant  of  themselves,  of  God  and  of 
Jesus  Christ  as  the  brutes  around  them,  if  you  doubt  the  fact 
make  the  experiment  in  this  same  borough,  (where  you  will  ad- 
mit there  is  more  than  usual  **  Internal  light")  and  you  will 
doubt  no  longer. 

Now  what  is  there  in  a  heathen  atmosphere  that  should  render 
the  inhabitants  more  enlightened  than  in  the  United  States! 
If  people  here  are  so  ignorant,  how  benighted  must  they  be  in 
heathen  lands! 

2.  Account  for  the  ignorance  of  our  Western  Indians,  You 
have  selected  them  as  an  example  of  lifcht  and  piety;  but 
wherein  is  either  of  these  manifested  ?  They  acknowledge,  it 
is  true,  a  Great  Spirit,  but  like  all  Deists,  they  have  no  notion 
of  his  holiness  or  justice,  do  not  believe  he  interferes  with 
mortals,  and  pay  him  no  worship  !  On  the  other  hand  they  do 
worship  the  devil,  and  vindicate  their  conduct  in  so  doing  upon 
the  principle  that  the  good  Spirit  does  not  need  to  be  propitiat- 
ed, and  only  the  Evil  Spiri'  is  to  be  feared.  They  universally 
sacrifice  to  the  snake,  and  are  so  superstitious,  tliat  sorcerers  and 
wizards  are  the  most  influential  men  in  their  tribes.  The 
savage  and  revengeful  ferocity  with  which  tliey  torment,  and 
even  eat  their  enemies,  is  well  known.  Not  two  years  have 
elapsed,  since  we  had  an  account  in  the  newspapers  of  one  of 
the  tribes  on  the  Missouri  impaling  a  little  infant^  as  a  sacrifice 
to  the  evening  star! — and  nothing  but  her  flight  saved  the  mo- 
ther from  a  similar  fate!    As  to  tlieir  « light,"  David  Folsom, 


28u 


one  of  the  Choctaw  chiefs,  in  a  letter  dated  Sept.  3,  1820, 
says  :  Brother,  I  am  thankful  to  the  good  people  in  your  coun- 
try in  sending  Christian  people  to  us  to  lead  us  out  of  darkness 
to  the  light.  Brother,  we  Choctaws  has  heen  in  darkness  and 
ignorant  so  long,  that  we  have  suffered  much ;  the  Choctaws 
know  there  is  a  God  who  is  a  Maker  of  aU  things,  hut  no  know- 
ledge of  Jesus  Christ,  and  therefore  the  wicked  ways  were  our 
path,  we  had  no  one  to  tell  us  in  what  way  we  should  serve 
God.  But  now  I  hope  my  nation  have  found  a  true  fri(>nd,  and 
forever  more  our  children  may  live  together  as  hrothers  and 
sisters,  and  worship  the  true  God  of  Israel."  Rel.  Rem.  p.  92, 
1821.  Again;  a  half  breed  Cherokee,  brother  to  Catherine 
and  David  Brown,  a  young  man  of  some  intelligence,  called  on 
the  Missionaries  at  Dwight  on  the  Arkansas,  July  9,  1821,  who 
was  deplorably  ignorant  of  all  spiritual  things.  He  said  he 
had  never  been  told,  and  never  knew  but  that  men  died  like  beasts; 
that  man  has  a  soul  which  exalts  him  above  them,  and  should 
exist  after  death ;— or  that  there  was  a  beloved  Book  which 
informed  us  of  a  future  state.  He  said,  he  rather  thought  in 
himself  that  men  did  not  die  as  beasts,  but  that  they  lived  some- 
where after  death,  but  how  or  where  he  knew  not/'*  Boston 
Recorder  1822,  p.  38.  Now  how  is  this  consistent  with  your 
doctrine  of  an  Universal  Light  superior  to  the  Bible  ? 

3.  How  is  it  that  none  of  the  heathen  converts  speak  of  their 
previous  light?  They  all  with  one  consent  testify  against  their 
old  religion,  and  own  their  former  total  darkness.  The  conse- 
quence of  sending  the  Bible  to  Otaheite  and  the  Georgian  Is- 
lands has  been,  that  "  their  old  gods  are  destroyed,  the  Morais 
demolished,  human  sacrifices  and  infant  murder  abandoned,  and 
the  people  are  every  where  calling  for  missionaries."  Pomaree, 
the  king  writes :  «  I  wish  you  to  send  those  idols  to  Britain, 
that  they  may  know  the  likeness  of  the  gods  that  Tahiti  wor- 
shipped. I  wish  you  every  blessing,  friends,  with  success  in 
teaching  this  bad  land,  this  foolish  land,  this  land  which  is  igno- 
rant of  good,  this  land  that  knoweth  not  the  true  God,  this  regard- 
less land,'*  V.  Wilson's  Memoirs.  The  king  of  Raiatea  writes  : 
I  and  all  my  people  are  rejoicing  because  you  compassionated 
us  and  sent  missionaries  to  our  dark  land,  a  land  of  darkness ; 
and  they  liave  made  known  to  us  the  true  light,  even  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  we  all  must  be  saved.  We  have  known  Satan's 
deceit  and  lies,  therefore  we  have  cast  down  our  Morais,  and 
burned  our  gods  in  the  fire.  I  had  covered  up  the  evil  spirits 
well,  in  order  to  send  them  to  England  to  you ;  but  some  men 
said  that  I  had  taken  care  of  the  evil  spirits,  and  that  was  the 
reason  1  was  overtaken  with  sickness.  I  was  requested  by 
The  people  to  burn  the  evil  spirits,  and  I  said  burn  them.  Orr> 


281 


and  Hiro  were  the  two  evil  spirits  that  were  burned.  fVe  have 
lived  in  darkness  and  in  the  shade  of  death  under  the  deceitful 
influence  of  Satan;  man}  kinejs  have  died  and  .e;one  to  the  Po, 
(hrll)  and  now  1  am  made  acq  (tainted  with  the  true  God."  Bos- 
ton Recorder  18i*2,  p.  50.  Now  qupre,  are  not  the  heathen  con- 
verts  as  jSi"(»od  judf^rs  of  th"  hjifjt  which  thcv  liad  before  they 
heard  tin'  Gosjn  I.  as  aii\  in  ihis  distant  land  ean  be? 

4.  ll<iw  happens  it  that  not  one  of  your  ••pious  heathen," 
ever  rvrote  a  book  explaininj^  the  Gospel  waif  of  salvation? 
Hundreds  of  the  aneients  wrote  on  religious  suhjeets,  and  com- 
municated all  the  light  they  had,  hut  not  one  of  them  gives  a 
hint  of  Christianity.  Cicero  wrote  De  Natura  Deorum," 
Seneca  on  **  Morals,*'  and  Marcus  Jlurelias  his  "  Meditations," 
but  their  light  compared  with  tliatof  any  Scripture  writer,  is 
as  that  of  a  gloxv  worm*to  the  light  of  the  sun  ! 

5.  How  happened  it  that  the  Apostles  found  no  ^'Internal 
lighV^  nor  pious  heathen,-^  where  they  went?  The  Apostle 
Paul  states,  thai  he  was  commissioned  to  open  the  eyes  of  the 
Gentiles^  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God."  He  tells  the  Ephesians,  that  they  were 
formerly  "  without  God  and  without  hope  in  the  world."  And 
at  Athf  ns  *<  his  spirit  was  stirred  within  him,  when  he  saw  the 
city  wholly  given  to  idolatry  Now,  if  tiie  heathen  world  is 
so  full  »)f  **  liglit,"  so  full  of  «*pious"  people  as  you  pretend,  how 
did  it  happen  that  the  Apostle  never  discovered  it?  I  rather 
think  his  ideas  of  *^  light"  and  "  piety"  were  very  different 
from  yours. 

6.  H«)w  happens  it  that  none  of  the  modern  missionaries  find 
any  light  in  any  of  the  regions  which  they  visit?  Missiona- 
ries have  gone  to  India,  China,  South  Sea  Islands,  to  the  West 
Indies,  to  Greenland,  to  Africa,  to  our  western  Indians,  but 
every  where  they  find  *<  no  light,  but  rather  darkness  visible." 

7.  If  the  heathen  have  more  liglit  than  Christendom,  why 
have  you  ever  sent  missionaries  among  them  ?  True,  you  have 
never  troubled  them  much;  but  why  trouble  them  at  all,  if  they 
are  so  wise,  and  virtuous,  and  happy? — Please  reconcile  your 
doctrine  with  your  practice  ! 

Lastly;  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  Millennium?  Are  we 
to  become  heathen  ? — or  they  to  become  Ci»ristian  ?  Surely,  if 
they  liave  "  more  of  the  essentials  of  the  true  faith,"  than  we, 
it  is  but  right  Christendom  should  conform  to  them.  Accord- 
ing to  your  statement,  paganism  is  the  tuuk  rei.igion, — 
and  thi-  promise  to  Christ  should  read,  "  I  will  give  thee  the 
Christians  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  evangelixed  parts  of 
the  earth  for  thy  possession  ! ! !"  fVe,  it  seems,  are  sitting  in 
the  vaKcy  and  shadow  of  death,  while  the  sun  of  Righteousness 
36 


282 


is  shining  on  the  heathen; — tlic  Bible  instead  of  dispelling 
Paganism,  as  we  have  fondly  hoped,  is  itself  to  be  eclipsed  by 
the  superior  light  of  conscience, — and  a  second  invasion  of 
Goths  and  Vandals  is  to  introduce  into  Europe  another  Age 
OF  Light  ! !  PAUL. 

Seventh'day,  5th  mo.  18,  1822» 

LETTER  XXVIL 


The  great  object  of  the  present  important  discussion  on  the 
part  of  Amicus,  iias  been  to  illustrate  the  Gospel  doctrine, 
so  often  and  so  variously  expressed  in  the  inspired  writings 
<<that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,"  but  that  ♦'in  every 
nation  they  that  fear  Him  and  work  righteousness,  are  accepted 
of  him."  Acts  x.  34,  35.  1  have  demonstrated  the  truth  of  this 
position  so  often,  not  only  by  shewing  that  the  tenets  which  op- 
pose it  are  derogatory  to  the  Divine  attributes  of  Justice  and 
Mercy,  but  by  citing  the  plainest,  the  most  explicit  Scripture 
language  in  its  support,  that  I  am  persuaded  the  candid  en- 
lightened reader  who  tiuly  regards  the  sentiments  of  the  in- 
spired penmen,  as  a  revelation  from  God,  cannot  reject  it. 
The  doctrine  of  my  opponent,  that  <♦  the  Scriptures  are  the  only 
means  of  salvation,"  makes  our  divine  Creator  a  cruel  despot — 
makes  him  condemn  millions  of  immortal  souls  to  endless  misery 
without  the  shadow  of  a  crime — makes  him  a  "  respecter  of 
persons"  contrary  to  the  positive  assurance  of  the  Apostle  ! — 
makes  him  take  pleasure  in  the  destruction  of  his  rational 
family,  although  he  has  affirmed  the  contrary  !  Shews  that  the 
Apostle  was  mistaken  when  he  asserts  that  <*  the  saving  Grace 
of  God  has  appeared  unto  all  men  !" — that  the  Evangelist  was 
in  an  error  when  he  declared,  that  Christ  was  the  true  light 
that  lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world" — that  he 
uttered  a  falsehood  when  he  said  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins, 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world," — . 
that  our  Lord,  the  Prophets,  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  were 
all  utterly  deceived,  and  consequently  that  the  Holy  Scriptures 
are  untrue  ! ! ! 

It  appears  to  me  needless  to  pursue  the  argument  much 
further. — My  opponent's  scheme  will  [  think  be  rejected  by  en- 
lightened men  of  all  denominations.  For  the  two  last  centuries 
it  has  been  gradually  loosing  its  advocates,  and  as  the  Gospel 
Sun  arises  will  certainly  vanish  with  other  gloomy  phantoms, 
the  offspring  of  error,  the  nurselings  of  superstition,  influential 
only  in  the  darkness  of  apostacy  from  the  faith  as  it  is  in  Jesus 
our  only  Saviour. 


283 


Some  reply  will  Iiowever  be  expected  to  some  of  my  opponent's 
jbsen  ations  and  assertions  in  his  last  address  to  us.  This 
expectation  I  will  briefly  attempt  to  gratify. 

"Until  Amicus  can  produce  one  heathen  who  was  not  an 
idolater,  he  must  either  give  up  his  hope  for  them,  or  give  up 
the  Bible." — As  1  am  not  willing  either  to  give  up  my  hope  tor 
the  heathen,  or  my  reverence  for  the  Bible,  1  will  just  say, 
that  I  have  never  understood  tliat  the  natives  of  Pennsylvania, 
composed  of  many  thousands  of  heathens,  were  idolaters  !  I 
have  never  heard  that  tliey  worshipped  through  the  medium  of 
images  or  any  terrestrial  object,  but  always  considered  God 
under  the  character  of  the  **  Great  Spirit,"  the  object  of  their 
adoration,  the  source  of  all  their  blessings,  and  as  their  hope 
and  refuge  in  the  hour  of  affliction  and  distress  !  Of  their  ex- 
traordinary faith  in  divine  protection,  and  patience  under  se- 
vere trials,  as  well  as  their  gratitude  for  providential  deliver- 
ances, I  could  give  many  authentic  proofs. 

On  the  quotati<m  of  Amicus  from  the  book  of  Revelation, 
chap.  vii.  9,  *•  Paul"  says  :  **  Any  one  who  will  consult  the  pas- 
sage, will  perceive  that  this  refers  to  events  that  took  place  under 
the  sixth  seal,  or  just  before  tJw  reign  of  Constantine.^*  That  is, 
that  ♦»  the  great  multitude  w  hieh  no  man  could  number,  of  all 
nations,  kindreds,  tongues  and  people,  who  stood  before  the 
throne  with  palms  in  their  hands  and  clothed  with  white  robes," 
were  redeemed  just  before  the  reign  of  Constantine,  This  is  a 
marv  ellous  discovery  ! — yet,  according  to  m\  opponent,  not  so 
marvellous  but  that  **  any  one  who  will  consult  the  passage  will 
perceive  it." — If  any  of  m\  readers  beside  «•  Paul"  have  per- 
ceived i7,  I  confess  their  perception  has  been  more  acute  than 
mine  !  I  have  frequently  consulted  the  passage,  but  never  had 
such  a  view  till  now !  And  if  1  had  been  as  clear  sighted  as 
«  Paul,"  and  had  congratulated  myself  on  such  a  wonderful 
discovery,  I  should  on  reflection  have  been  led  into  some 
doubts  of  the  soundness  of  my  vision,  when  I  recollected,  that 
neither  the  Apostles  nor  their  successors  had  at  that  time  ever 
seen  one  fourth  part  of  all  the  nations,  kindreds,  tongues  and 
people  on  the  earth  ! ! ! 

*<  Are  not  many  of  the  deists  of  our  day  equally  virtuous  as 
the  heathen  ?"  The  answ  er  to  this  question  must  necessarily 
depend  upon  another  question, "  who  Paul  means  by  deists  ?"— 
I  suppose  by  his  liberal  application  of  the  term  deist,  that  he 
means  every  one  who  cannot  subscribe  to  the  dogmas  of  his 
own  creed !  If  so,  I  answer  in  the  affirmative,  and  yet  it  will 
not  appear  that  both  deists  and  heathens  are  destitute  of  sav- 
ing grace  I  If  *»  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath 
appeared  unto  all  men,"  then  both  deists  and  heathens  must 


ii84 

liave  saving  grace  !  whether  they  have  made  good  use  of  this 
grace  or  not,  is  quite  another  question  ! 

Has  Amicus  Jofg^tten  the  ten  Roman  persecutions,  and 
the  millions  of  Christians  that  were  murdered  by  the  pious 
heathen  r'*  Amicus  has  not  forgotten  that  the  heathens  un- 
der some  of  the  Roman  emperors,  persecuted  the  Ciiristians, 
neither  has  he  forj^otten  the  more  hh»ody  persecutions  of  »» the 
pious"  Christians  against  their  fellow  professors  for  thirteen  or 
fourteen  centuries  ;  but  if  I  have  ever  read  of  any  heathen 
nation  or  people  who  persecuted  their  fellow  professors  for  a 
difference  of  opinion  on  religious  subjects,  I  confess  I  have  for- 
gotten it ! — I  believe  it  was  left  for  the  professors  of  Christian- 
ity to  set  the  example  of  a  people  under  the  same  faith,  burning, 
gibbeting,  and  hanging  their  brethren,  for  a  consciennous 
dissent  from  a  creed  of  man^s  making  ! !  And  I  further  believe, 
that  all  these  scandalous  scenes  were  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the 
very  doctrine  now  advocated  by  my  opponent ;  that "  the  Scrip- 
tures, without  the  immediate  teaching  of  the  Holtj  Spirit,  are  the 
supreme  and  only  standard  of  faith  and  practice  !'* 

Now  this  doctrine  is  not  only  repugnant  to  the  uniform  tes- 
timony of  the  inspired  writers — not  only  makes  the  Divine 
Being  both  cruel  and  unjust,  but  it  effectually  destroys  the  most 
prominent  distinction  between  the  old  and  new  Covenants ! 
The  old  Covenant  w^as  an  outward  law,  written  on  tables  of 
stone,  and  made  through  the  instrumentality  of  Moses.  The 
new  Covenant  as  described  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  and  illus- 
trated by  the  Apostle,  w^as  "  the  Law  of  the  Spirit" — •<  the  Law 
written  iji  the  heart" — "  an  inward  teacher^^ — the  Holy  Spirit 
in  the  soul.  Heb.  viii.  10.  «  And  they  shall  all  be  taught  of 
God,"  saith  our  Lord.  John  vi.  45.  This  covenant  was  ratified 
and  confirmed  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  by  the  pouring  out 
of  the  Holy  Spirit!  And  tliis  covenant  can  only  be  known  to 
those  who  have  been  introduced  into  it  by  the  same  blessed 
means  ! — They,  and  they  only,  who  "  arc  led  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  are  his  legitimate  children  !"  All  others  are  bastards," 
let  their  professimi  be  what  it  may  !  *<rfany  man  have  not 
the  spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his." — This  was  the  Apostle's 
doctrine,  and  however  it  may  be  opposed  by  the  letter  learned 
Scribes,  and  form.al  Pharisees  of  the  present  day,  it  will  remain 
to  be  true  to  the  end  of  time  ! 

By  those  whose  interest  it  is  to  keep  the  people  in  a  servile 
subjection  to  them  for  instruction,  this  doctrine  is  generally  re- 
jected !  The  idea  that  men  may  be  immediately  instructed  in 
the  essentials  of  salvation,  strikes  at  the  root  of  a  mercenary 
priesthood  !  It  effectually  removes  the  plea  for  a  learned  corps 
of  theologians !  and  therefore  the  Scripture  assertion,  that 


2SB 


uudcr  the  new  covenant  they  shall  not  (of  necessity)  teacii 
every  man  his  neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying : 
know  the  Lord,  for  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  to  the 
greatest,"  is  to  them  the  greatest  of  all  heresies  ! — The  idea, 
that  any  man  may  "  know  the  Lord,"  except  through  some 
external  means,  is  to  them  a  5nost  impious  one ! !  !  It  puts  the 
leariied  rabbis  on  a  level  with  the  humblest  Christian,  and  if 
generall.v  received,  will  as  surely  spoil  their  trade,  as  fhe  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostle  spoiled  the  trade  of  Demerrius,  and  the 
craftsmen  at  Ephesus ! — Whoever  adheres  to  ihis  doctrine, 
must  t'xpect  from  them  the  title  of  «  infidel,"  spurious  Chris- 
tian," or  deist !" — The)  will  tell  him,  *•  He  hath  a  devil  and 
is  mad" — so  it  was  of  old  !  and  so  1  suppose  ii  will  always  be — 

If  they  have  called  the  master  of  the  house  Bf^elzabub,  how 
much  more  shall  they  call  them  of  his  household."  Man.  x.  25. 

The  Hindoos  are  charged  by  my  opp«)nent  with  "  idolatry^  the 
greatest  of  all  abominations  in  the  sight  of  God,"  and  that 
consequently,  they  «  shall  all  have  their  part  in  the  lake  that 
hurneth  with  fire  and  brimstone." — That  ««  idolatry"  is  an 
abomination  in  the  sight  of  God,  is  freely  admitted  ;  whether 
it  be  "the  greatest  of  all  abominations"  in  the  view  of  divine 
purity,  I  will  not  undertake  to  decide.  The  text  Paul"  has 
partialltj  quoted,  places  it  the  seventh  in  the  order  of  crimes,  that 
shall  lead  the  wicked  into  that  lake  !  And^Htjing,^'  the  eighth. 

The  degree  of  criminality  attached  to  any  act,  is  however 
very  immaterial,  if  such  act  be  sufficient  to  separate  the  soul 
from  the  source  of  all  true  happiness. — But  it  is  very  material 
that  we  should  understand  the  true  meaning  of  the  terms  we 
use,  and  I  apprehend  that  there  is  hardly  any  one  so  vaguely 
used,  so  much  misunderstood  as  the  term  idolatry ;  and  1  will 
venture  to  assert,  that  there  is  no  nation  on  the  face  of  the 
whole  earth,  who  is  more  interested  in  ascertaining  its  true 
meaning,  than  the  professors  of  Christianity  are. — Many  are  so 
weak,  as  to  think,  that  if  they  do  not  fall  down  to  sticks  and 
stones,  they  are  wholly  free  from  idoiatry  !  as  if  idolatry  were 
merely  an  act  of  the  body  ;  but  this  is  fatal  delusicm  !  a  delusion 
that  I  fear  is  setting  innumerable  souls  in  a  false  rest;  that  is 
doing  more  injury  to  the  interest  of  vital  Christianity,  than 
perhaps  any  other  catise  !  God  seeth  not  as  man  seeth,  for 
man  looketh  on  the  outward  app(  arance,  hut  the  Lord  looketh 
on  the  heart."  1  Sam.  xvi.  7.  With  the  hearf  devoted  to  God 
in  sincerity,  a  man  may  worship  his  Creator  through  some  out- 
ward representation,  and  yet  be  guiltless  of  idolatry  in  the 
sight  of  Him,  who  "looketh  on  the  heart." — I'he  Christian 
under  the  sy  mbols  of  bread  and  wine  may  worship  God  without 
idolatry  ;  the  Hindoos  under  the  symbols  of  "Vishnu  the  pre- 


286 


sen  er"  or  Brahma  the  creator,  may  adore  the  <f  One  God, 
which  the  Veda  teaches,"  equally  innocent  of  that  "  greatest  of 
all  abominations  ! ! !"  What  then,  it  may  be  asked,  is  idolatry  ? 
I  ansu  er  in  the  lan.e;uage  of  Scripture,  worshipping  and  serv- 
ing (lie  creaUire  more  i  .dn  the  Creator,  who  is  God  blessed 
forever."  Rom.  i.  25.  Lovi  hg  any  thing  more  than  God  i-  idola- 
try !  "  Covetousness."  sai-h  the  ;v|.»'isile,  •»  is  idolatry."  Cohis. 
ill.  5.  *»  The  wu-ksofthe  desh  are  id<datrv."  Gal.  v.  20, — and 
the  idolaters  ot  whom  J(»hn  speaks,  in  the  text  qu(»te3  by  my 
opponent,  are  they  <»  whose  god  is  their  belly,  whose  glory  is 
their  shame,  who  mind  earthly  things,^'  Philip,  lii.  19.  Now  if 
this  be  the  true  definition  ol  idolau),  who  are  greater  idolaters 
than  professing  Christians  from  one  extremity  of  Christendom 
to  the  other?  If  covetousness  be  idolatry — and  the  Apostle 
declares  positively  that  it  is  so,  we  need  not  go  far  to  discover 
« this  greatest  of  all  abominations  in  the  sight    of  God;" 

priests  and  people  seem  gen»  rallj  infected  with  it;  like  a 
deadly  gangreen  it  has  spread  through  church  and  state,  till 
the  whole  body  presents  to  the  religious  observer  the  awful 
S}  mptoms  of  general  corruption.  If  w  e  really  believe  the  asser- 
tion of  the  Apt»stle  that  "  covetousness  is  idolatry,"  and  that  all 
"idolaters  shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  that  hurneth  with 
fire  and  brimstone,"  I  know  of  no  people  who  are  more  dis- 
tinctly called,  hy  the  signs  of  the  times^  to  avoid  this  horrible 
catastrophe,  tlian  the  high  professors  of  that  religion,  which 
was  introduced  by  Him,  who  had  •»  not  whereon  to  la>  his  head." 

To  the  character  of  the  Hindoos,  as  an  honest,  hospitable, 
benevolent  and  amiable  people,  1  could  bring  further  proofs 
than  those  contained  in  my  last  number ;  even  from  the  pens 
of  those  who  have  joined  with  interested  m^n  in  vilifying  them  : 
Pinkerton,  who  paints  his  caricature  of  them  in  colours  furnish- 
ed by  Catholic  and  Protestant  priests,  is  yet  reluctantly  forced 
to  acknowledge,  that  **  they  are  at  present  in  general  highly 
civilized,  and  of  the  mt)st  gentle  and  amiable  manners." 

«  Paul"  endeavours  to  invalidate  the  testimony  I  adduced  in 
favour  of  the  Hindoo*  character,  by  saving,  that  «  Abulfazel 
was  a  Mahometan,"  and  the  <*  Bengal  officer  an  avowed  infi- 
del."— Now,  if  all  this  were  granted,  1  cannot  perceive  that  in 
matters  of  fact  thcv  ought  not  to  be  credited!  Jf  no  historical 
evidence  were  admitted,  but  that  furnished  by  Christians,  we 
must  reject  nearly  all  ancient  history  !  Herodotus,  Livy,  Thu- 
cydides,  Tacitus.  Plutarch,  and  a  hundred  others  must  be  wholly 
laid  aside.  Abulfazel.  though  a  Mahometan,  was  a  most  learned 
and  respectable  author.  "  His  Co!>:pendium  of  the  Philosophy 
of  the  Hindoos'Mn  the  Ayeen  Acbery,  is  quoted  as  authority  by 
the  best  writers,  and  his  statements  respecting  the  Hindoo  faith 


2S7 


and  manners,  is  amply  confirmed  by  the  most  creditable  mo- 
dern travellers.  As  to  the  Ben,^al  officer,  his  writings  give 
the  strongest  evidence  of  his  belief  in  the  doctrines  of  genuine 
Christianity.  It  will  puzzle  my  opponent  to  prove  that  he  ev  er 
avowed  himself  an  infidel — until  ''Paul"  give  better  evidence 
than  mere  assertion,  we  shall  take  the  liberty  to  disbelieve 
him 

There  is,  however,  one  trait  in  th<-  character  of  my  witnesses, 
which  gives  great  weight  to  thrir  trstiinony  :  they  were  disin- 
terested  men  !  It  would  have  better  served  the  cause  or  detrac- 
tion espoused  by  my  opponent,  if  his  evidence  had  bei  n  of  this 
character.  With  a  view  to  a  bishopric,  Buclianan  was  betray- 
ed into  many  inaccuracies,  his  statements  respecting  tfie  gene- 
ral moral  character  of  the  Hindoos  are  unworthy  of  credi(.  It 
is  probable,  that  his  anxiety  fur  «*  an  Ecclesiastical  establish- 
ment in  British  India,"  led  him  into  many  errors,  and  in<luced 
him  to  take  the  character  of  these  Hindoos,  vvlm  had  been  cor- 
rupted by  an  int^^rcourse  with  the  British  Christians,  as  a 
sample  of  the  \vh(de  nation ;  for  it  is  not(>ri(»us,  that  whenever 
the  aborigines  of  any  country  have  long  had  the  manners  and 
customs  of  the  professors  of  Christianity  to  copy  after,  they 
become  vicious — they  degenerate  from  their  original  simplicity 
and  moral  excellence  !  Of  this  truth,  many  striking  examples 
might  be  adduced. 

*<  Their  very  gods  are  monsters  of  vice,  says  Mr.  Ward.'* 
This  is  not  the  only  instance  of  Ward's  insincerity. — No  one 
who  is  acqiiainted  with  the  worship  of  the  Hindoos,  can  be  de- 
ceived by  this  assertion ;  the  characters  of  Bramah  and 
Vishnu — the  crea-ive  and  upholding  energies  of  the  Deity,  are 
by  no  means  **  monsters  of  vice."  Tliey  believe  in  one  Su- 
preme Being,  the  author,  the  preserv  er  and  governor  of  the 
world  ;  his  attributes  are  described  under  various  allegorical 
representations  ;  but  the  most  enlightened  Hindoos  never  lose 
sight  of  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God.  The 
Pundits"  declare,  that  **  it  was  the  Supreme  Being,  who,  by  his 
power,  formed  all  creatures  of  the  animal,  veg<*table  and  ma- 
terial world,  to  be  an  ornament  to  the  magazine  of  creation  ;  and 
whose  comprehensive  benevolence,  selected  man  the  centre  of 
knowledge,  to  have  dr^minion  a»ul  authority  over  the  rest,  and 
having  bestowed  upim  him  judg'iient  and  understanding,  gave 
him  supremacy  over  the  corners  of  the  world."  From  the 
«  Mahaharat,"  Wilkins  has  translated  a  short  episode,  en- 
titled the  Baghvat  Geeta,"  which  was  **  designed  to  esta- 
blish the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  tlje  Godhead,  aufi  from  a  Jiist 
view  of  the  Divine  nature,  to  deduce  an  idea  of  that  kind  of 
worship  most  acceptable  to  a  perfect  being."      Colonel  Dow" 


288 


f|Uotes  a  passage  from  one  of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hindoos, 
showinj^  their  sentiments  concerning  the  Divine  nature  and  per- 
fections :  they  say,  <«  As  God  is  immaterial,  he  is  above  all  con- 
ception ;  as  he  is  invisible,  he  can  have  no  form,  but  trom  what 
we  behold  of  his  wt>rks  ;  we  may  conclude,  that  he  is  eternal, 
omnipotent,  knowing  all  things,  and  present  every  wherf." 

x\len  capable  of  forming  such  ideas  of  the  Deity,  must  ijavc 
perceived,  that  it  was  cmly  by  sanctity  of  hei^rt  anei  purity  of 
manners,  they  could  hope  to  gain  the  approbation  of  a  being 
perfi'ct  in  .c/H.'?ness/' 

The  misrepresentations  of  Ward  are  so  gross,  that  tliey 
scarcely  deserve  a  serious  refutation  :  "  Their  scriptures,"  he 
says,  **  encourage  pride,  iuipuritv,  falsehood,  and  murder,  and 
their  heaven  is  a  brothel."  Unless  my  opponent  can  give  ex- 
tracts from  their  scriptures  to  support  these  charges,  I  shall 
consider  Ward  as  a  wilful  calumniator,  and  "  Paul"  as  an 

accessary  after  the  fact."    1  can  give  large  quotations  from 

the  Veda,"  which  go  to  prove  that  their  scriptures  encourage 
humility,  purity 9  truths  and  the  most  sublime  benevolence,  not  only 
to  their  friends  and  neighbours,  but  even  to  their  enemies!  and 
also  that  their  heaven  is  a  place  of  pure  and  spiritual  enjoy- 
ment!  But  Ward's  character  has  been  rendered  so  suspicious 
by  his  recent  conduct  in  India,  that  I  admire  my  opponent 
should  venture  to  rely  on  such  *<  a  broken  reed"  for  any  sup- 
port to  his  views  respecting  the  Hindoos  ! ! ! 

The  Abbe  Dubois,  a  Roman  Catholic  priest — an  interested 
witness — can  hardly  be  viewed  in  a  better  light.  His  state- 
ments, that  the  Hindoos  have  «<  little  respect  for  parental  au- 
thority, and  little  filial  affection,"  are  libels  on  their  character, 
and  may  be  easily  refuted  by  authentic  documents. — When  he 
sa}  s,  that  *<  falsehood  and  p(»rjury  are  considered  virtuous,  when 
they  tend  to  our  own  advantage,"  he  is  rather  depicting  his  own 
character,  than  the  character  of  the  people  he  professes  to  de- 
scribe !  It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say,  that  there  is  scarcely  a 
people  further  removed  from  these  crimes  than  the  natives  of 
Hindostan  !  !  His  other  statements  are  equally  inconsistent  with 
the  best  established  facts  ! — As  to  "  Paul's"  quotations  from 
the  ^<  missionaries,"  I  beg  leave  to  consider  them  useless  in 
the  present  discission  ;  it  is  a  maxim  pretty  well  established, 
that  wAe7i  a  witness  has  any  interest  at  stake  in  the  decision  of  a 
question,  he  is  incompetent  /  They  are  too  deeply  interested  in  the 
present  case  to  be  admitted  as  evidence. 

I  have  been  amused  at  modern  missionary  ingenuity  in  the 
pursuit  of  money:  there  has  certainly  been  nothing  like  it  ex- 
hibited since  the  suppression  of  the  Begging  Friars  ;  and  a 
very  prominent  feature  of  their  scheme,  is  to  represent  foreign 


2S9 


nations  as  in  the  lowest  state  of  moral  degradation  and  wretcli- 
edness ;  nations  whose  greatest  miseries  have  arisen  from  their 
intercourse  with  the  professors  of  Chris tianit}^^.  For  this  pur- 
pose the^  have  sent  out  innumerable  pamphlets,  pictures,  bal- 
lads, sermons,  and  tales,  calculated  to  work  upon  the  benevo- 
lent affecrions,  and  all  containing  pathetic  appeals  to  the 
PURSE  ! ! — ^The  country  has  been  inundated  by  spiritual  men- 
dicants, with  every  varit  ty  of  pretext  for  raising  money,  with 
every  species  of  argument  to  prove,  that  without  money  the 
world  must  everlastingly  perish,  and  the  Church  of  Christ  be 
totally  annihilated.  In  a  publication  lately  made  in  one  of  the 
eastern  states,  a  certain  zealot  in  this  cause,  has  undertaken 
to  show  how  many  millions  of  dollars  it  will  take  to  "  evan- 
gelize the  world,"  and  how  reasonable  it  would  be  for  the  in- 
habitants of  America  and  Europe  to  supply  the  enormous  sum- 
The  whole  amount  demanded  by  this  modest  missionary,  may 
be  estimated  by  the  sum  to  be  raised  in  the  United  States,  which 
is  only  seven  hundred  and  forty-eight  millions  three  hundred  and 
twenty-three  thousand  dollars  !!  a  sum  which  I  suppose,  at  a  mo- 
derate calculation,  must  be  seven  times  as  much  as  the  whole 
specie  in  the  territory  of  the  Union  ! ! ! 

I  said  I  had  been  amused  at  missionary  ingenuity — it  is  true, 
the  folly  and  extravagance  of  these  men  have  sometimes  ex- 
cited a  smile — but  on  the  whole,  their  conduct  has  excited  the 
most  painful  reflections.  It  is  calculated  to  produce  on  the  pub- 
lic mind  a  most  unfavourable  impression  resppcting  the  nature 
and  genius  of  that  blessed  religion,  which  was  introduced  and 
propagated  by  our  Lord  and  his  disinterested  Apostles !  It  is 
calculated  to  produce  a  belief,  that  the  divine  nature  and  pow^- 
erful  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  is  utterly  insufficient  to  effect  the 
great  purpose  of  the  Deity,  without  the  aid  of  a  mercenary  set 
of  men — men,  as  different  in  character  from  the  primitive  min- 
isters of  the  church,  as  the  character  of  Simon  Magus  was 
different  from  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul  !  I  have  coveted  no 
man's  silver  or  gold,''  said  the  Apostle  !  Modern  missionaries 
covet  every  man's  silver  and  gold!     These  hands,"  said  he^ 

have  ministered  to  my  own  necessities  and  to  those  that  were 
with  me."  Our  modern  apostles  depend  entirely  on  the  la- 
bours of  others,  and  demand  millions  besides  to  aid  them  in 
their  work  ! ! ! — Ministers  made  by  men  must  be  supported  by 
men — and  ministers  thus  made  and  supported,  have  in  all  ages 
of  the  church,  been  stumbling  blocks  in  the  way  of  honest  in- 
quirers after  divine  Truth.  AMICUS. 
37 


290 


Saturday,  May  25,  1822, 

LETTER  XXVII. 

ON  MINISTERIAL  SUPPORT. 

This  controversy,  if  it  has  had  no  other,  has  had  already 
one  good  effect.  It  has  opened  the  eyes  of  the  cointuunit}'  to 
the  danger  of  your  doctrines.  Many  persons,  who  at  tlie  com- 
niencemt  nt  of  this  discussion  were  prepossessed  in  favour  of 
your  society,  have  expressed  themselves  surprised  and  asto- 
nished at  the  d'ictrinesyou  avow.  And  I  am  persuaded  the  more 
your  sentiments  are  known,  the  more  will  Cliristians  be  con- 
vinced your  system  is  fundamentally  erroneous.  Between  you 
and  us  there  is  a  great  gull  fixed,  which  forever  forbids  our 
union  in  this  world,  if  not  in  the  next.  Whenever  you  will  give 
us  your  ideas  of  the  Trinity^  I  think  Christians  will  be  con- 
vinced \ou  worship  a  different  God. 

On  the  subject  of  **  internal  light,''  wx  might  employ  the 
year  round,  but  I  again  offer  to  rest  where  we  are,  and  proceed 
to  the  subject  of  the  1  rinity.  After  you  have  openl}  prefer- 
red the  religion  of  the  Hindoos  and  of  our  western  Indians, 
to  Christianity  ; — after  you  have  denied  the  worship  of  Vishnu 
and  Brahma  to  be  idolatry  5 — after  you  have  allowed  the  deists 
to  have  "saving  grace  — alter  you  have  said  "the  religion  of 
Christendom  is  falsely  called  the  Christian  religion," — and  that 
"the  heathen  have  always  been  made  worse  by  the  professors 
of  Christianity," — the  public  will  need  no  farther  justification 
of  all  the  charges  I  have  brought  against  >ou,  nor  doubt  your 
partiality  for  heathenism,  and  hostility  to  the  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ.   I  think  I  have  clearly  proved  that  your  doctrine  of 

internal  light,"  is  an  "  ignis  fatuus"  in  point  of  delusion, — a 
deadly  poison  to  the  spirit  of  Missions,  and  a  deceitful  sup- 
planter  of  the  Scriptures  of  truth. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  I  have  frequently  and  with 
sufficient  fulness  expressed  my  sentiments,  and  now  wait  for 
yours.  Besides,  the  doctrine  of  Trinitarians  is  clearly  and  fully 
stated  in  all  their  Confessions  of  Faith  ;  but  with  regard  to  your 
sentiments,  your  writers  and  preachers  say  nothing,  or  only 
just  enough  to  testify'  your  rejection  of  the  commonly  received 
doctrine.  What  your  general  sentiments  on  this  subject  are,  is 
evident  from  the  silence  of  your  Catechism  and  Apologies  ,  and 
from  the  late  declaration  of  "  Amicus,"  when  speaking  of  the 
disputes  between  the  Arians  and  Trinitarians  of  primitive  times^ 
he  says:  "one  believed  in  the  Unity  of  God,  the  other  thought 
the  Deity  was  composed  oj  'parts! No.  2,  Chris.  Rep.  1822. 
No  candid  reader  will  doubt,  and  I  challenge  "  Amicus,"  to 


291 


tieny,  that  by  the  latter  expression  he  meant  to  condemn  and 
stigmatize  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity , — of  course  he  sides  with 
the  Jlrians!  ....  If  I  am  mistaken,  explain  yourselves,  satisfy 
the  public  on  this  subject. 

Whil*^  waiting  for  your  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  the  Tri- 
nity, 1  will  by  way  of  episode,  notice  another  hobby  of  yours^ 
that  of  ministerial  siqyport. 

It  is  impossible  lo  hear  many  of  your  sermons,  or  read  many 
pagf^s  of  your  books,  without  being  struck  with  your  indiscrimi- 
nate opposition  to  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  who  are  not  of  your 
own  society.  Your  chief  objections  to  other  societies  seem  to 
centre  in  their  ministers;  and  such  is  your  «♦  charity"  for  the 
ministers  of  other  persuasions,  that  mnc  of  your  members  can 
attend  their  preaching  but  on  peril  of  your  high  displeasure. 
The  chief  objection  brouglit  against  the  preachers  of  other 
denominations,  is  that  they  receive  a  regular  pecuniary  support 
from  the  people,  to  whom  they  minister.  On  this  subject  1  sub- 
mit the  following  co'isiderations  : 

1.  Ministers  cannot  live  on  air.  They  are  «men  of  like  pas- 
sions" and  necessities  with  other  people.  They  cannot  well  do 
without  food  and  raiment,  and  lodging  for  themselves  and  fami- 
lies. Now,  for  these  temporal  wants  they  must  themselves  pro- 
Tide,  or  others  must  provide  for  them. 

2.  They  ought  not  to  be  necessitated  to  provide  for  them- 
selves, as  such  employment  will  always  interfere  with  that 
Avork,  which  ought  to  employ  all  their  time.  True,  if  they  never 
trouble  themselves  about  the  flock,  except  on  the  sabbath  ;  if 
they  bestow  no  other  labour  on  their  people,  than  simply  to 
rise  in  meeting  once  in  a  while,  and  talk  at  random  for  an  hour 
or  two;  if  they  make  no  sacrifices  for  the  church,  and  for  six 
days  in  the  week  are  wholly  engaged  in  their  own  temporal 
concerns,  reason  says  they  have  no  claim  to  support.  But  if,  like 
David,  they  will  not  "serve  God  with  that  which  cost  them 
naught;"  if  they  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  are  instant 
in  season  and  out  of  season,  preaching  the  word  ; — if  as  good 
shepherds  they  are  employed  in  watching  the  flock, — as  stewards 
distributing  bread  to  the  household, — as  watchmen  guarding 
the  walls  of  Zion  ;  if  they  visit  the  sick  and  the  inquiring,  go 
into  the  highways  and  hedges  to  compel  people  to  come  to  the 
Gospel  feast;  in  short,  if  they  "do  the  work  of  an  Evangelist 
and  make  full  proof  of  their  ministry,"  they  will  have  labour 
and  care  enough  without  the  care  of  a  store  or  farm  upon  their 
shoulders. 

3.  The  Apostles  refused  having  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
temporal  concerns  even  of  the  church.  "  It  is  not  reason,  that  we 
should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve  tables.  We  will  give 


292 


ourselves  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word,^^ 
Acts  vi.  4.  And  Paul  exhorts  Timothy,  Meditate  upon  these 
things,  ^ire  thyself  wholly  to  them,  that  thy  profiting  may  appear 
unto  all,"  1  Tim.  iv.  15.  I'he  worls.  of  the  ministry  is  as  im- 
portant and  as  arduous  now  as  eighteen  hur^dred  years  ago. 
But  ministers  cannot  now,  any  more  than  in  primitive  times, 
**give  themselves  wholly"  to  these  things,  «  he  continually  in 
prayer  and  the  ministry  of  the  word,"  unless  their  temporal 
neci  ssities  are  supjdied  by  others,  and  they  are  relieved  from 
worldly  cares.  Therefore  they  ought  to  he  supported. 

4.  God  commanded  the  old  Testament  church  to  support  their 
ministers^  therctbie  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church,  now  to  sup- 
port her  ministry,  Num.  xviii,  20,  24.  The  ministers  of  religion 
under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  were  to  be  entirely  devoted  to  the 
ministry,  and  to  be  entirely  supported  by  the  people.  The  Le- 
vites  had  no  inheritance  with  ihe  other  tribes,  but  only  forty 
eight  cities  for  their  habitation  ;  they  were  to  have  no  landed 
property,  except  a  few  acres  about  their  cities  for  their  gardens 
and  cattle,  and  were  to  lieve  on  the  contributions  of  the  people, 
Kum.  XXXV.  2,  3.  The  Israelites  v.ere  commanded  not  to  for- 
sake them.  <*Take  heed  that  thou  forsake  not  the  Levite  go 
long  as  thou  shalt  live  upon  the  earth,"  Deut.  xii.  19.  In  the 
days  of  Nehemiah,  the  Levites  being  neglected,  had  to  resort  to 
other  labours  for  their  support,  for  which  the  people  were 
reproved,  Neh  xiii.  10.  "And  I  perceived  that  the  portions  of 
the  Levites  had  not  been  given  them,  for  the  Levites  had  fled 
every  one  to  his  field  ;  then  contended  I  with  the  rulers,  and 
said:  Why  is  the  house  of  Godforsaken?  Then  brought  all 
Judah  the  tithes.  &c."  Now.  though  the  letter  of  these  laws  is 
repeaU  d,  the  spirit  is  still  binding  I  do  not  say  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  spiritual  Israel  to  give  the  same  amount  or  the  same  pro- 
portion, but  it  is  still  their  duty  to  support  the  ministry.  The 
church  is  still  obligated  so  to  provide  for  its  ministers,  that  they 
may  not  be  compelled  to  **go  into  the  field"  to  procure  bread, 
but  may  "give  themselves  wholly'"'  to  their  appropriate  work. 
But  lost  you  should  say,  it  is  unfair  to  reason  from  the  Law  to 
the  Gospel,  I  observe, 

5.  I  only  follow  Apostolic  example.  In  the  9th  chapter  1st 
Corinthians,  the  Apostle  pleads  his  right  to  a  temporal  support, 
in  a  way  that  no  gainsayer  can  resist.  "  Say  I  these  things  as 
a  man,  or  saith  the  Law  the  same  also  ?  For  it  is  written  in  the 
Law  of  Moses  :  Tiiou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that  treadeth  out 
the  corn.  Doth  God  take  care  for  oxen  ?  Or  saith  he  it  alto- 
gether for  our  sakes  ?  For  our  sakes  no  doubt  this  is  written, 
that  lie  that  plougiieth  should  plough  in  hope.  If  we  have  sown 
unto  you  spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great  thing,  if  we  shall  reap 


293 


your  carnal  things  ?  Do  ye  not  know,  that  they  which  minister 
about  holy  things,  live  of  the  things  of  the  temple  ?  and  they 
which  wait  at  the  altar  arc  partakers  with  the  altar  ?  Even  so 
hath  the  Lord  ordainedf  that  they  which  preach  the  Gospel  should 
live  of  the  Gospel,^'  1  Cor.  ix.  8, 18.  In  these  verses,  it  is  evident, 
that  the  Apostle  reasons  from  the  Law  to  the  Gospel,  or  fi*  nn  the 
Mosaic  to  tlie  Christian  dispensation,  and  infers  that  as  they 
who  ministered  at  the  altar,  iivei!  bv  the  altar,  so  they  who 
preach  the  Gospel,  should  live  by  the  Crospel.  In  other  words, 
they  should  be  wholly  given"  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary, 
and  be  <*  w!»ollv  supported^  by  the  oftVrings  of  the  sanctuary. 

6.  Our  Lord  positively  forbade  his  Apostles  to  make  the  least 
provision  for  their  temporal  supports  Malt.  x.  9,  10.  *•  Provide 
neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor  brass  in  your  purses,  nor  scrip  for 
your  journey,  neither  two  coats,  nor  shoes,  nor  yet  staves." — 
Why  ? — "  For  the  workman  is  worthy  of  his  meat,''  Here  we  are 
taught  two  things  :  first,  that  ministers  ought  to  be  intent  only 
on  the  work  of  the  ministry,  not  providing  in  the  least  for  their 

'  temporal  support ;  and  secondly,  that  the  people  for  whom  they 
I  «  work,"  are  obligated  to  give  them  **  meat,"  or  proper  main- 
'     tenance.  The  argument  needs  no  application. 

7.  The  common  sense  of  all  denominations  has  led  them  to 
devise  the  means  of  supporting  the  ministry.  There  is  not  a 
church  in  Christendom,  however  it  may  cry  out  against  <*  sala- 
ries" and"  hirelings,"  but  always  feels  itself  bound  in  common 
justice  to  defray  the  expences  of  those,  who  serve  them  in  spi- 
ritual as  well  as  in  secular  things.  It  is  perfectly  unreasonable 
to  expect  a  man  to  **  go  a  warfare  at  liis  ow  n  cliarges  ; — or  to 
plant  a  vineyard  and  not  eat  the  fruit  thereof; — or  to  feed  a 
flock  and  not  eat  the  milk  of  the  flock,"  1  Cf)r.  ix.  7.  Those 
churches,  if  there  be  any  such,  wiio  require  from  their  minis- 
ters no  sacrifices,  either  of  time  or  labour, — which  have  no 
wish  that  <ahe  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,"  or  that  he 
who  attempts  to  edify  the  church  should  ♦•study  to  be  a  work- 
man that  needeth  not  to  be  ashamed," — who  feel  no  concern, 
that  he  should  <*  rightly  divide  the  word  of  truth,  and  give  to 
each  his  portion  in  due  season," — who  are  willing  to  be  served 
with  that  which  ^^cust  him  naught," — and  who  resemble  those 
parents,  that  care  not  what  teacher  their  children  have,  pro- 
vided he  <•  works  cheap," — are  consistent  with  themselves  in 
giving  nothing  to  the  ministry, — but  whether  in  indulging  such 
covetousntss,  or  in  being  contented  with  such  a  ministry,  they 
really  promote  their  own  interest  is  another  question. 

8.  Four  own  doctrine  justifies  our  conduct.  Jesse  Kersey,  in 
his  Treatise,  says  :  «  As  it  w  as  the  duty  of  the  church  in  pri- 
mitive times  to  give  to  the  poor  amongst  them    so  we  believe 


29i 


we  are  also  in  duty  hound  to  provide  for  our  poor  as  well  minis* 
TEKs  as  others."  p.  27. 

Barclay  in  his  Apology,  says  :  we  freely  acknowledge  that 
there  is  an  obligation  upon  those  to  whom  God  sends,  or  among 
whom  hf*  raiseth  op  a  minisU  r,  if  need  he  tliut  they  minister  to 
his  necessities.  Stc</n(ji>,  that  it  is  lawful  for  //im,  to  receive 
what  is  nect^ssary  and  convenient.  1  liat  which  we  •oppose  in 
this  matter  is,  First,  that  it  should  be  ccmstrain^d  and  limited. 
Secondly,  that  it  shoidd  hi  superfluous,  chargeable  and  sumptu- 
ous. 1  hirdly,  the  man:lVst  abuse  thereof,  &c,"  Ap.  p.  3^2.  As 
to  **  constraining"  a  salary,  1  know  of  no  such  practice  in  this 
country,  or  if  ii  exist  it  would  fiod  no  friend  in  me.  As  to  a 

superfluous  and  sumptuous"  salary,  it  is  neither  to  be  expect- 
ed nor  demanded.  And  as  to  the  abuse"  of  this  or  any  other 
privilege,  it  is  wrong  tooff*er  it  as  an  argument  against  the  thing 
itself. 

Lastly  ;  Four  own  practice  ought  to  teach  you  more  charity 
on  this  subject.  You  will  not  deny  that  the  expences  of  your 
preachers  are  defrayed  ;  and  when  they  have  a  family  to  sup- 
port, and  feel  themselves  *<  moved"  to  travel  and  visit  the 
churches,  yt)U  feel  yourselves  bound  to  pay  not  only  their  per- 
sonal expences,  but  to  contribute  sufficient  for  the  maintenance 
of  their  family.  I  do  not  blame  you  for  this.  To  do  less  would 
be  a  sin  against  comnum  honesty,  would  be  as  unchristian  and 
unjust  as  to  take  mimey  from  a  poor  preacher's  pocket,  when 
he  was  poor  and  you  were  rich.  But  I  blame  you  for  condemn- 
ing others,  f(»r  doing  that,  which  you  do  yourselves.  Your 

PREACHERS  NEVEK  SUFFER  FOK  WANT  OF  TEMPORAL  SUPPORT. 

Among  those  denominations  whom  you  condemn  for  paying 
salaries,  nine  out  of  ten  of  the  ministers  are  in  a  temporal  point 
of  view,  continual  suff*erers.  A  poor  preacher,  who  should  come 
down  from  Philadelphia  to  Wilmington,  to  perform  a  labour  of 
love  among  you,  even  though  he  should  not  utter  one  word, 
would  probably  receive  double  the  compensation  from  your 
society,  that  a  preacbrrof  any  other  denominaMon  would  re- 
ceive from  his  stfciety  for  sioiilar  services.  And  yet  you  are 
continually  exclaiming  ae:ainst  *<  hirelings,"  ♦•  salary  men,*' 
<*  dark  letter-learned  clergy,"  •<  mercenary  priesthood,"-— in 
reff-rf-nce  to  men  w  ho,  to  say  the  least,  are  as  free  from  covet- 
ousT»ess,  have  as  muc))  disinterested  love  for  souls,  and  are  as 
willing  to  spend  and  be  spent,  as  any  preachers  of  your  deno- 
mination. 

PAUL. 


295 


Seventliedatft  6th  mo.  1, 1823. 

LETTER  XXVIII. 

One  of  the  early  cliarges  brought  against  us  by  our  modern 
"Paul,"  is,  tliat  we  **  disluui' nr  the  v'-criptures."  1  think 
e\evy  candid  reader  of  tlie  essa>s()t  Amicus  will  by  this  time 
perceive  tlie  faiiatv  ot  this  charge.  Happily  for  the  society 
whose  views  i  advutate,  its  doctrines,  its  mmisti},  its  various 
testimonies  are  s<»  p»  rfectly  in  acc(»rdanc«^  with  the  sentiments 
of  the  inspired  peninen,  that  our  distinguishing  peculiarities  as 
well  as  those  truths  which  we  hold  in  C(»mm«m  with  (»ther  Chris- 
tians, are  not  only  supported  by  the  general  tenor  and  spirit  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  by  the  most  lucid,  the  most  positive 
Scripture  tex's.  Amicus,  in  support  of  these  testimonies,  has 
been  careful  in  the  present  disi  ussion  always  to  refer  to  the  sa- 
cred records.  The  great  mass  of  auth(»rities  which  1  have 
quoted  from  this  source,  remains  unanswered  by  my  opponent — 
and  I  will  venture  to  say,  must  ever  remain  unanswered!  To 
the  Holy  Scriptures  we  refer  for  the  support  and  confirmation 
of  every  tenet  that  we  hold  ;  and  by  their  clear  unequivocal 
testimony,  we  are  willing  the>  should  stand  or  fall.  Our  reli- 
gion is  the  religion  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  stripped  ot  the 
absurd  and  awkward  appendages  wifh  which  pnesicraft  and 
superstition  have  shrouded  it  in  the  night  of  ignorance  and 
apf^stacy,  from  <«  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 

Now,  I  know  of  no  set  of  men  who  so  much  dxsiionour  the 
Scriptures  as  my  oppon^  nt  and  his  adherents.  Their  general 
practice  exhibits  little  less  than  a  constan'  scene  of  dishonour 
to  the  Scriptures!  What  is  the  language  their  creed  proclaims 
to  the  world  ?  Does  it  not  say,  that  the  holy  penmen  were  in- 
competent to  express  the  ideas  communicated  by  Divine  inspi- 
ration— and  that  the  language  of  the  Bible  is  so  obscure  that  it 
cannot  be  understood,  without  the  aid  of  a  company  of  priests? 
And  what  better  language  do  their  Catechisms  and  Confessions 
of  Faith  hold  out  to  the  world?  Do  they  not  declare,  that  our 
Lord  and  his  Apostles  were  too  ignorant  to  convey  by  their 
ministry  and  writings,  a  clear  idea  of  the  truths  they  wished 
to  communicate?  And  therefore,  ihat  it  was  necessary  that  a 
set  of  theologians  should,  by  tlie  introduction  heathenish  terms 
and  new  fangled  words,  help  them  to  express  their  meaning! !! 
Now,  if  these  proceedings  do  not  *•  dishonour  the  Scriptures," 
I  confess  I  do  not  understand  how  they  can  be  dishonoured  ! 

To  reject  the  Scriptures  altogether,  would  not  throw  a  thou- 
sandth part  of  the  dishonour  upon  them  that  priestcraft  has 
done  !  The  man  who  should  declare  his  disbelief  in  the  Bible, 
would  tell  us  that  such  was  the  dark  and  prejudiced  state  of 


296 


his  own  mind,  it  could  not  be  convinced  by  the  most  demonstra- 
tive evidence  ;  and  I  cannot  perceive  that  he  would  thus  throw 
any  more  dishonour  on  the  Scriptures,  than  he  would  throw  on 
the  philosophy  of  Newton,  by  telling  us  that  he  did  not  believe 
thaf  the  w^orld  was  round  !  But  for  tlie  professed  friends  of  the 
Scriptures  to  tell  us,  that  the  Scripture-writers  were  too  igno- 
rant clearly  to  express  their  meaning,  is  to  do  all  they  can  to 
dishonour  thern  ! 

The  mischief  that  has  been  done  to  the  cause  of  Christianity, 
by  the  officious  conduct  of  these  men,  is  incalculable.  It  was 
a  powerful  means  of  involving  the  church  in  Cimmerian  dark- 
ness— in  a  deep  and  deadly  apostacy  from  the  true  and  living 
faith  ;  an  apostacy  from  which  she  has  yet  but  very  partially 
recovered  !  It  was  a  means  of  introducing  her  into  those  scan- 
dalous scenes  of  war,  bloodshed,  persecution  and  bigotry,  which 
have  turned  away  more  souls  from  Christ,  than  all  her  avowed 
enemies,  by  a  thousand  fold  ! 

And  what  have  the  creeds,  adopted  by  the  churches  since  the 
reformation,  done  for  the  cause  of  Christianity  ? — No  man,  who 
is  tolerably'  well  versed  in  the  history  of  the  church,  for  the 
two  last  centuries,  can  be  at  a  moment's  loss  to  answer !  They 
have  made  more  dissentitm  and  schism,  than  will  be  healed  for 
ages  !  They  have  made  more  infidels  than  Hobbes,  Hume, 
Paine,  and  all  the  host  of  deistical  writers,  and  their  adherents, 
put  together  ! ! !  The  introduction  of  the  two  words  "  Trinity'* 
and  »*  Sacrament,"  the  former  of  theological  invention^  the  lat- 
ter the  name  of  a  Romish  military  oath,  has  produced  more  mis- 
chief, more  jangling,  more  disc{»rd,  than  any  other  single 
cause  ! — And  all  this  is  done  by  the  j^'^ofessed  friends  of  the 
Scriptures ! ! !  By  tliose,  who  tell  us  that  "  the  Bible  is  the  su- 
preme and  only  standard  of  faith  and  practice  /" 

Now  I  appeal  to  the  sober  sense  of  my  readers,  of  every  reli- 
gions denomination,  if  there  can  be  any  conduct  more  inconsis- 
tent, more  absurd,  more  mischievous,  than  this  is  ? 

I  think  it  must  now  be  evident,  that  however  my  opponent 
may  profess  to  venerate  the  Scriptures,  he  dishonours  them  in 
practice.  If  I  be  not  mistaken,  his  conduct  and  temper  are  as 
unlike  the  candid,  benevolent,  amiable,  and  affectionate  spirit 
of  the  Evangelists  and  Apostks,  as  his  doctrine  is  inimical  to 
theirs !  Not  content  witli  consigning  three-fourths  of  the  hu- 
man family  to  everlasting  destruction  without  a  crime — in  his 
last  number,  he  has  assumed  the  seat  of  Abraham,  and  fixed  a 
great  gulf  between  himself  and  a  large  community  of  Chris- 
tians, ^<  which  forever  forbids  our  union  in  this  world,  if  not  in 
the  next,'^  The  plain  meaning  of  which  is,  that  i/"  there  be  no 
future  state  of  purgatory^  we  can  never  come  together  in  any 


297 


world !  And  as  lie  lias  placed  himself  on  tlie  liappy  side  of  this 
gulf,  WE  must  all  go  with  Dives  into  eternal  perdition  !  ! !  What 
a  notable  spirit  of  ciiarity  does  this  champion  of  Calvinism  ex- 
hibit to  the  world  ! 

Now,  with  such  tempers  and  opinions  as  these,  I  think  (on  our 
own  account)  we  need  not  be  much  afflicted  if  we  never  come 
together — with  notions  so  gloomy,  and  doctrines  so  unscriptu- 
ral,  I  believe  his  company  would  tend  to  damp  the  enjoyment 
of  his  companions  in  any  state  !  I  sincerely  wish  him  the  bless- 
ing of  a  little  more  "  internal  ligiit." 

I  would,  before  1  proceed  further,  wish  explicitly  to  state, 
that  in  exposing  the  absurdity  and  inconsistency  of  my  oppo- 
nent's doctrine,  1  do  not  intend  to  cast  any  reflectitm  on  the  re- 
ligious society  of  which  he  is  a  member.  I  have  the  pleasure 
of  being  intimately  acquainted  with  a  number  of  that  religious 
community,  who  abhor  the  doctrine  of"  Paul"  as  much  as  I  do; 
and  I  fully  believe,  that  a  large  proporti(m  of  them  are  too  en- 
lightened to  feel  any  gratitude  for  his  public  appearances  in  the 
present  discussion,  i  know  tiiat  many  of  their  most  respecta- 
ble members,  entirely  disapprove  his  sentiments.  The  march 
of  truth,  though  slow,  is  certain — it  must  prevail,  and  will  pre- 
vail. The  doctrines  advanced  by  Amicus,  I  believe,  are  Scrip- 
tural ;  if  they  be  so,  they  will  correspond  with  the  impressions 
of  truth  in  every  mind  ;  they  will  accord  with  the  discoveries 
of  that  Divine  "  internal  light  that  lighteth  every  man  that 
eometh  into  the  world  which,  as  it  is  yielded  to,  will  remove 
every  prejudice,  and  fill  up  that  "  gulf"  which  "  Paul"  would 
Jjit"  between  us. 

I  will  now  notice  a  few  of  my  opponent's  remarks  in  his  last 
number  :  *<  You,"  says  he,  <<  have  openly  preferred  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Hindoos,  and  the  western  Indians,  to  Christianity." 
If  my  readers  would  see  how  untrue,  how  uncandid  is  this  as- 
sertion, I  would  wish  them  to  consult  the  preceding  numbers  of 
Amicus  ! — I  referred  to  the  Hindoos  and  Indians  of  America, 
merely  to  show,  that  their  moral  character  and  religious  senti- 
ments, gave  proof,  that  God  had  not  left  himself  without  a  wit- 
ness in  the  hearts  of  those  people  ;  but  that,  according  to  the 
Apostle's  assertion,  '*  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation 
hath  appeared  to  ail  men."  This  was  the  whole  drift  of  ray 
argument,  and  not  to  prove  that  the  religion  of  the  Hindoos 
and  western  Indians  was  preferable  to  Christianity.  I  had  pre- 
pared myself  with  authentic  documents,  to  illustrate  and  con- 
firm my  views,  which,  as  **  Paul"  has  abandoned  the  subject, 
need  not  now  be  presented  to  the  public,  but  which  may  here- 
after enrich  tlie  columns  of  the  <*  Repository,"  and  will  fur- 
nish a  rich  feast  to  all  who  delight  to  see  the  evidences  of  the 
S8 


298 


love  and  mercy  of  our  adorable  Creator,  through  Christ  Jesus 
our  Lord,  to  his  rational  family  ! 

«  Christianity,"  stripped  of  the  extraneous  matter,  which, 
in  the  dark  ages,  has  been  attached  to  it,  by  politic  priests  and 

interested"  men,  is  the  pure  truth,  to  which  nothing  can  be 
preferable  ! — It  is  "  undefiled  religion"  in  all  its  native  h)veli- 
ness  ! — It  is  the  love  of  God  manifested  to  man  ! — It  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  working  in  him  all  amiable  tempers  and  holy  disposi- 
tions ! — It  is  the  pearl  of  great  price,  for  which  the  spiritual 
merchantman  is  willing  to  sell  allf  that  he  may  buy  it. — It  is, 
in  fine,  a  religion  as  different  from  the  noisy,  pompous,  fashion- 
able religion  of  the  present  day,  as  the  religi<m  of  Christ  was 
different  from  the  religion  of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees. 

Again,  says  my  opponent,  «  You  have  denied  the  worship  of 
Vishnu  and  Bramah  to  be  idolatry."  Can  any  thing  be  fur- 
ther removed  from  the  truth  than  this  assertion  ?  Where  have 
I  denied  the  worship  of  these  to  be  idolatry  ?  I  have  no  more 
denied  such  worship  to  be  idolatry,  than  1  have  denied  the  wor- 
ship of  bread  and  wine  to  be  idolatry.  I  have  truly  admitted, 
that  the  sincere  devoted  soul  may  worship  the  oNii  tutje  God, 
under  either  of  those  symbols,  without  idolatry  ;  but  I  have  ne- 
ver said,  that  the  worship  either  of  Vishnu  or  Bramah,  bread 
or  wine,  is  not  idolatry  ! 

Again  ;  *•  You  have  allowed  the  deist  to  have  saving  grace." 
True,  1  have — and  I  have  shown  that  where  there  is  no  such 
grace,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  sinning  against  it.  I  am 
ignorant  of  any  divine  grace  that  is  not  saving  grace."  All 
God^s  grace,  (fr  manifestation  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  is  saving  in  its 
very  nafui''- :  and  the  Apostle  tells  us,  that  the  grace  of  God 
that  bringeih  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men."  The  only 
reason  wbv  all  men  are  not  saved  by  it,  is,  that  they  will  not 
obey  it. — He  that  doeth  evil,"  and  loves  to  do  evil,  **  hateth 
the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should 
be  reproved.'*  My  opponent^s  doctrine  of  unconditional  elec- 
tion and  reprobation,  is  the  most  severe  reflection  on  the  justice, 
goodness  and  mercy  of  God,  that  ever  was  made  by  the  vilest 
blasphemer ! 

Again  ;  "  You  have  said  the  religion  of  Christendom  is  false- 
ly called  the  Christian  religion."    To  this  charge  I  must  plead 

guilty  And  if  my  opponent  can  prove  that  a  swearing, 
fightings  formal,  carnal  religion,  is  the  Chi  istian  religion," 
then  I  will  confess  that  I  have  been  mistaken  in  my  estimate  of 

the  religion  of  Christendom." 

And,  you  have  said  that  the  heathen  have  always  been 
made  worse  by  the  professors  of  Christianity."  1  have  said 
no  such  thing !  So  saying,  I  should  have  reflected  upon  the  ho- 


299 


noured  memory  of  the  good  William  Penn,"  and  his  brethren^ 
as  well  as  on  other  disinterested  Christians,  who  lia\  e  from  the 
purest  motives,  and  in  Gospel  love,  laboured  for  the  good  of  the 
heathens,  which  1  should  be  sorry  to  do.  But  Amicus  did  say, 
that  **  whenever  the  aboi  igines  of  any  country,  bave  long  had 
the  manners  and  customs  of  the  professors  r)f  Christianity  to 
copy  after,  they  have  become  vicious,  and  degenerated  from 
their  original  simplicity  and  m(>ral  excellence."  And  I  appeal 
to  tlie  histor}  nf  every  European  settlement  of  any  standing, 
for  tiie  truth  of  the  assertion.  Amicus  is  prepared  to  prove 
his  position,  if  *»  Paul"  dares  to  deny  it! 

My  opponent  thinks  he  has  clearly  proved,  that  our  doctrine 
of  •»  internal  light"  is  an  ignis  faruus  in  point  of  delusion. 
Now,  1  think,  tlnit  if  he  has  proved  any  thing,  he  has  proved 
that  himself  is  involved  in  great  internal  darkness,"  In- 
deed, the  wliole  scope  of  his  addresses  to  us  seems  to  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  this  idea! 

But  "  our  doctrine  is  a  deadly  poison  to  the  spirit  of  mis- 
sions." Now,  what  are  we  to  utiderstand  by  the  spirit  of  mis- 
sions? If  by  it  we  are  to  understand  the  spirit  of  making 
money  by  a  professed  zeal  for  missions;  then,  1  suppose,  we 
must  admit  that  our  doctrine  is  a  deadly  poison  to  this  spirit ! 
It  is  a  poison  to  Simony  in  all  its  forms.  Wherever  money  is 
introduced  into  the  church  as  a  compensation  for  religious  service^ 
there  the  spirit  of  Simon  Magus  has  come  again  from  his 
place!  A  spirit  that  was  severely  rebuked  by  the  Apostle,  on 
its  first  appearance  in  the  church  ;  a  spirit  that  is  contrary  to 
every  precept  and  example  of  the  primitive  believers — Simon 
the  sorcerer  excepted  ! 

I  would  not,  however,  be  understood  to  mean,  that  the  so- 
ciety of  Friends  are  inimical  to  missions  under  the  direction 
of  the  Great  Head  of  the  church.  That  society  has,  perhaps, 
more  missionaries  abroad,  than  any  other  society  of  Christians: 
if  we  accept  the  word  *•  missionary"  to  mean  those  who  travel 
abroad  in  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel,  Ever  since  its  first  ap- 
pearance as  a  society,  its  ministers  have  been  remarkable  for 
their  indefatigable  zeal  in  propagating  their  views  of  Divine 
truth.  No  human  laws  could  ever  prevent  them  from  endea- 
vouring to  labour  in  the  Gospel  of  Clirist — no  persecution  could 
deter  them — they  have  encountered  every  difficulty,  they  have 
made  every  sacrifice  in  the  performance  of  their  religions  duty 
in  this  respect,  as  the  annals  of  Great  Britain  and  our  New- 
England  colonies  will  abundantly  testify.  And  they  have  ever 
preached  **  without  money  and  without  price." 

The  next  observation  of  **  Paul"  that  I  shall  notice,  is  the 
following :  «  It  is  impossible  to  hear  many  of  your  sermons,  or 


300 


read  many  pages  in  your  bonks,  without  being  struck  witli  your 
indiscriminate  opposition  to  all  ministers  of  tUe  Gospel  who  are 
not  of  your  society."  In  this  case,  my  opponent  manifests 
either  a  want  of  candor  or  discrimination;  our  testimony  is  di- 
rected not  against  any  Gospel  minister  !  It  is  levt  lle<l  at  a  mer- 
cenary ministry  I  It  is  against  Simony  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word.  It  is  against  one  of  the  most  disgraceful,  the  most  in- 
jurious practices  to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  that  was  ever 
introduced  into  the  church. 

Let  us  now  see  liow  my  opponent  defends  this  practice : — 

Ministers,"  says  he,  «  cannot  live  on  air."  Now,  who  wants 
them  to  live  on  air?  I  am  sure  the  society,  whose  principles  I 
advocate,  never  taught  that  ministers  should  •*  live  on  air!" 
Our  ministers  do  not  *<  live  on  air  !"  They  have,  like  the  Apos- 
tle, lived  by  their  labour  and  industry  ;  and,  like  him,  have  heen 
•willing  to  spend  and  be  spent  for  the  love  of  Christ  and  the 
salvation  of  souls.  They  have  demonstrated  to  the  world,  as 
the  Apostle  did  to  the  primitive  church,  that  all  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  a  mercenary  priesthood,  have  no  foundation  in  rea- 
son, or  the  nature  of  things ! 

The  idea,  that  **  ministers  ought  not  to  be  necessitated  to 
provide  for  themselves,  as  such  employment  will  always  inter- 
fere with  that  work  which  ought  to  employ  all  their  time,'*  is 
deeply  founded  in  delusion.  It  is  contradicted  by  the  practice 
and  experience  of  the  Apostles,  and  thousands  since  their  time. 
It  is  the  weak  and  defenceless  refuge  of  those  who  «  cannot 
dig,"  are  determined  not  to  work,  aud  are  not  "  ashamed  to 
beg."  Was  not  the  Apostle  Paul  as  faithful  and  laborious  a 
minister  of  Christ,  as  any  of  our  modern  priests  ?  Did  he  not 
spend  as  much  time  in  the  service  of  the  Gospel  as  any  of 
them  ?  And  yet,  did  he  not  follow  his  trade,  whereby  he  not 
only  supported  himself,  but  had  a  surplus  to  <*  minister  to  the 
necessities  of  them  that  were  with  him  ?"  **  Facts  are  stub- 
born things,"  <*Paul!"  Now,  are  the  professed  ministers  of 
Christ,  in  the  present  day,  entitled  to  higher  privileges  thsm  the 
Apostles  ?  They  <*  who  talk  at  random  for  an  hour  or  two,  once 
or  twice  in  a  week,"  may  claim  them,  but  I  doubt  that  neither 
the  Scriptures  nor  reason  will  grant  them  ! 

In  the  dark  night  of  apostacy  from  the  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  the  primitive  church,  among  other  baneful  errors,  an 
idea  was  admitted  that  labour  was  incompatible  with  religious 
contemplation,  or  Divine  enjoyment.  Now  the  very  reverse 
of  this  is  true.  There  is  no  state  more  friendly  to  the  growth 
of  religion  in  the  soul,  than  that  of  honest,  moderate  labour/ 
Whilst  the  hands  are  em])loyed  in  useful  occupation,  all  the 
morbid  consequences  of  idleness  are  prevented— the  passions 


301 


»re  subdued — and  the  soul  possesses  the  most  enviable  degree 
of  liberty,  to  expaiiate  on  the  thinj^s  of  God — to  commune  with 
the  author  of  her  existence — to  *'fiil  her  urn"  with  the  waters 
of  salvation,  and  to  be  prepared  to  distribute  to  others  the 
«  grace  that  has  been  given  iier,  according  to  the  measure  of 
the  gift  of  Christ,"  Eph.  iv.  7.  So  far  is  useful  employment  in 
secular  concerns  9  from  ♦*  interfering"  with  the  work  oi  an  Evan- 
gelist, that  it  is  one  of  the  best  means  in  the  hand  of  Provi- 
dence, to  prepare  the  mind  for  religitius  usefulness!  For  the 
truth  of  this  position,  I  appeal  to  the  experience  of  all  the  liv- 
ing members  of  the  church  of  Christ,  of  every  religious  de- 
nomination ! 

But,  says  *<  Paul,"  the  "  Apostles  refused  to  liave  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  temporal  concerns  even  of  the  church."  What  a 
miserable  refuge  is  tliis !  Because  the  Apostles  refused  <•  to  serve 
tables,"  therefore  they  refused  to  provide  for  their  own  wants  ! 
Because  they  refused  to  be  caterers  for  the  multitude,  therefore 
they  did  not  eat  the  fruit  of  their  own  labour  !  What  strange 
reasoning  is  this!  It  however  serves  to  show  one  thing — ^he 
weakness  of  the  cause  it  is  intended  to  support !  The  Scriptures 
give  us  no  idea  that  a  pecuniary  maintenance  was  ever  provided 
for  a  minister  of  Christ  / 1  / 

My  opponent's  argument,  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament, 
where  he  says,  ♦*  God  commanded  the  Old  Testament  church 
to  support  their  ministers,  therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
church  now  to  support  her  ministry,"  rather  proves  his  pre- 
paration for  a  bishopric  in  the  established  church  in  England, 
than  any  thing  else  !  if  this  argument  has  any  weight  as  to  the 
matter  of  it,  it  must  have  equal  weight  as  to  the  manner  of  it. 
And  so  our  modern  apostles  would  take  the  ttthes  of  our  corn, 
and  pigs,  and  chickens,  and  eggs  !  ! !  Such  reasoning  as  this, 
has  always  been  used,  to  show  the  propriety  of  2i  forced  main- 
tenance for  the  clergy  !  A  kind  of  maintenance  they  have  al- 
Avays  used,  and  still  use,  wherever  the  civil  authorities  of  any 
country  have  supported  their  claims  ! 

To  several  other  arguments  of  my  opponent,  which  my  li- 
mits prevent  me  from  noticing  at  present,  I  shall  reply  to  in  my 
next— if  the  Lord  permit.  AMICUS. 


302 


Saturday y  June  8,  1822- 

LETTER  XXVIII. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

«  There  are  Three  that  hear  record  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  Three  are  One.^^  Ijohn  v.  7. 

There  are  certain  doctrines  of  which  an  Apostle  has  said. 
If  there  come  any  unto  you  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed ;  for  he 
that  biddeth  him  God  speed,  is  partaker  of  his  evil  deeds,'* 
2  John  10.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference,  therefore,  what  a 
man  preaches,  or  what  he  believes.  *<  If  any  man  preach  any 
other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  he 
accursed."  Gal.  i.  6.  There  are  certain  doctrines,  therefore, 
which  it  is  no  **  charity"  to  tolerate ;  unhess  it  be  charity  to 
disobey  God  and  ruin  immortal  souls.  While  Christians  may 
and  ought  to  tolerate  minor  differences  of  taste  in  the  super- 
structure of  their  spiritual  building,  they  may  not  tolerate  differ- 
ence of  foundation.  For  **  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay 
than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  It  is  genuine  charity 
to  condemn  those  who  would  subvert  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Christianity;  as  much  so  as  to  warn  your  fellow-creatures 
against  a  fountain  which  has  been  poisoned. 

Now  if  there  be  a  single  doctrine,  which  is  vitally  essential 
to  the  Christian  system,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, — 
the  doctrine  that  •*  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  there  are  Three 
Divine  Persons,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power,  eternity 
and  glory."  This  doctrine  is  peculiar  to  Christianity  and  per- 
vades revelation  in  every  part.  Upon  it  the  whole  plan  of  sal- 
vation is  built.  Without  it  we  cannot  conceive  of  the  Father 
loving  the  world  and  sending  his  co-equal  Son  to  die  for  sin- 
ners ; — without  it,  we  cannot  understand  how  the  Son  could 
have  left  the  bosom  of  the  Father  and  the  glory  which  he  had 
with  Him  before  the  world  was,  to  tabernacle  with  men,  and 
make  atonement  to  the  F'ather  for  the  sins  of  the  world  j — and 
without  this,  we  could  never  comprehend  how  the  Spirit,  a 
third  agent,  should  lead  sinners  through  the  Son  to  the  Father. 
Take  away  this  doctrine,  and  the  Gospel  has  absolutely  no 
foundation.  It  is  <*  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision," — the  delusive 
enchantment  of  a  dream  that  cannot  possibly  be  realized. 
Every  system  of  doctrine,  every  Confession  of  Faith,  Catechism 
or  creed,  that  does  not  lay  this  down  as  a  fundamental  rock,  is 
falsely  called  "the  Gospel,"  and  is  built  ii\)on  the  sand.  Hence 
Christians  in  every  age  have  guarded  this  doctrine  as  they 


303 


would  the  apple  of  their  eye  ;  and  when  compelled  by  heretics 
to  make  a  creerf,  have  always  placed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  front.  And  in  every  age  they  who  acted  otherwise,  who 
neglected  to  make  a  full  statement  of  their  sentiments  on  this  head, 
have  always  been  suspected  of  fundamental  errors  and  preach- 
ing "another  Gospel."  The  church  has  a  right  to  know  the 
doctrines  of  her  members ;  and  the  church  at  large  to  know^ 
the  doctrines  of  every  denomination  that  claims  to  be  a  consti- 
tuent part.  Hence  the  propriety  of  creeds.  No  society,  whether 
religious  or  not,  which  attaches  the  least  importance  to  itself, 
will  admit  a  member  until  he  gives  unequivocal  evidence  of 
his  agreement  with  them  in  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
institution.  The  least  hesitation,  equivocation,  or  shyness  in 
answering  plain  and  reasonable  questions,  is  always  deemed 
ground  for  suspicion  and  rejection.  While  the  safety  or  pros- 
perity of  the  body  depends  on  his  agreement  with  them  iu 
essential  points,  if  he  shows  a  disposition  to  conceal  his  senti- 
ments, to  waive  the  subject,  or  refuses  to  give  full  satisfaction, 
he  is  regarded  as  a  spy  and  a  traitor.  And  ail  this  for  the  best 
reason  in  the  world,  because  if  "he  aofrees  with  them,  he  will 
rejoice  to  profess  such  agreement,  and  there  can  be  no  motive 
to  concealment,  but  a  consciousness  of  evil.  When  a  sentry, 
upon  whose  fidelity  depends  the  life  of  thousands,  challenges 
a  person  drawing  near  the  camp,  it  is  most  reasonable  that 
the  perscm  challenged  should  give  the  watch-word,  or  be  kept 
at  a  distance.  If  he  be  a  friend,  he  will  answer  at  once ;  if  he 
remain  silent,  or  attempts  to  equivocate,  there  is  something 
wrong. 

Now  since  the  days  of  your  founder,  the  Christian  church 
has  ever  been  challenging  your  doctrines  on  the  subject  of  the 
God  you  worship; — and  since  the  days  of  your  founder,  you 
have  generally  maintained  a  suspicious  silence  !  If  from  time 
to  time  you  have  set  forth  some  apology,  catechism  or  vindi- 
cation, while  you  have  been  abundantly  full  on  points  of  little 
consequence,  you  have  been  obstinately  silent  as  to  the  main 
thing.  Until  you  give  more  satisfactory  evidence,  that  you  are 
really  on  the  side  of  Christ  and  the  Gospel,  faithful  watchmen 
on  the  walls  of  Zion  will  keep  you  at  a  distance,  and  regard 
you  as  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  cause.  If  you  ask  the 
reason  of  our  scrutiny — you  find  it  in  the  divine  command  to 
^<  try  your  spirit,  whether  you  are  of  God to  examine  whether 
you  "  bring  the  doctrine  of  Christ,"  before  we  bid  you  God 
speed  ;  and  to  know  whether  you  preach  "  another  Gospel," 
before  we  acknowledge  you  as  servants  of  Christ.  And  ^'hotc 
can  two  walk  together  unless  they  be  agreed'^  in  the  fundamental 
points.  Now> 


30>i 

First  :  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  fundamental  poinL 
And  upon  tliis  we  have  a  right  to  know  ^^our  sentiments  before 
we  aeknowledge  you  as  Christians.  That  it  is  a  fundamental 
point  is  evident 

1.  From  ?he  arguments  produced  in  my  XlVth  Letter,  to 
which  for  the  sake  ot  brevity,  the  reader  is  referred. 

2.  From  the  unanimous  sentiments  of  the  primitive  church. 
On  this  subject  I  would  refer  «»  Amicus"  to  a  small  volume  now 
in  his  hands;  to  wit:  ^^MilLer^s  Letters  on  Unitarianism,^  in 
which  he  will  find  a  detail  of  facts,  and  an  exhibition  of  quota- 
tions from  Barnabas,  Clement,  Polycarp,  Ignatius,  Irenaeus, 
Theophiius,  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  Origen  and  Cyprian, 
demonstrating  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  not  only 
held  by  the  early  Christians,  but  held  as  essential  or  fundamental 
to  Christianity.  Letter  iv, 

3.  That  this  doctrinii  is  viewed  as  fundamental,  is  evident 
from  the  unanimous  concurrence  of  all  the  Creeds  in  Christendom. 
Not  a  single  Confession  of  Faith  can  be  mentioned,  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  recognized,  and  not  only  recog- 
nized, but  set  in  the  very  vafi  of  the  phalanx  of  truth.  It  is  un- 
necessary to  make  particular  quotations,  until  you  will  dare  to 
contradict  a  fact  so  universally  acknowledged.  Barclay's  Apo- 
logy and  Catechism,  for  their  si/e7ice  on  this  subject  stand  alone, 
and  for  that  silence  have  alwa^^s  been  suspected  of  some  secret 
rottenness  by  the  Christian  community.  Upon  this  subject,  as 
on  the  great  doctrine  of  Jltonement,  which  depends  upon  the  Tri- 
nity, he  observes  a  silence,  which  is  irreconcilable  with  Chris- 
tian frankness  and  honest  dealing. 

Secondly  :  The  rejectors  of  this  doctrine,  when  detected,  have 
ever  been  excluded  from  the  church.  Cerintiius,  Marcion,  Ebion, 
Theodotus,  Artemon,  Noetus,  Sabellius,  Paul  of  Samosata, 
Arius,  Macedonius,  and  all  in  early  times  who  infringed  on 
this  doctrine,  were  at  once  if  ministers,  deposed  from  the  minis- 
try and  excommunicated  from  the  church.  On  this  subject  the 
author  above  referred  to  remarks :  (Let.  v.)  **  Indeed  1  can  can- 
didly assure  you,  that  after  devoting  much  of  my  life  to  reading 
of  this  kind,  I  cannot  recollect  a  single  instance  in  all  antiquity 
in  which  any  individual,  or  body  of  individuals,  who  were 
known  to  deny  the  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  were 
regarded  as  Christians,  or  suffered  to  remain  in  the  communion 
of  the  church,"  p.  170.  "Those  who  considered  the  Saviour  as 
a  mere  man,-  those  who  regarded  him  as  the  frst  and  most  ex- 
altedof  all  creatures ;  those  who  held  a  mere  nominal,  and  denied 
a  real  Frinity,  that  is,  who  held  to  a  Trinity  names  but  not 
of  persons,  were  each  pronounced  in  their  turn,  by  the  universal 
church,  to  be  corrupters  of  the  truth,  and  were  publicly  treated 


305 


as  such." — It  is  a  fact,  that  such  heretics  were  not  only  ex- 
cluded from  the  Catholic  or  general  church,  but  their  right  to 
the  name  of  Christian  was  solemnly  and  formally  denied." 
All  this  he  confirms  by  a  particular  detail  of  facts. — Now,  quere, 
if  t/oit  reject  this  doctrine,  are  we  worse  than  the  primitive 
church  in  denj'ing  to  you  the  name  of  Christian,"  and  refusing 
to  consider  your  society  as  any  part  of  the  Christian  chiirch? 
Of  your  various  Apologies,  Catechisms,  Treatises,  in  which 
you  have  published  your  religious  creed  to  the  world,  this  doc- 
trine, upon  which  the  whole  system  of  salvation  rests — this  doc- 
trine, so  dear  to  the  primitive  church  and  to  Christians  in  every 
age,  forms  no  part !  It  is  unreasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  you  believe  it.  Had  you  attached  the  least  importance  to 
it,  it  could  not  but  have  been  mentioned.  The  «  God"  of  Bar- 
clay has  not  an  attribute  peculiar  to  the  God  of  Israel,  not  an 
attribute  to  distinguish  him  from  the  God  of  the  deist ;  and  the 
relie:ion  which  he  advocates,  is  simply  wMiat  is  called  natural 
religion,  dressed  up  with  a  few  scriptural  terras  by  way  of  orna- 
ment !  I  defy  you  to  prove  the  contrary. 

Thirdly  :  Heretics  on  this  subject,  anticipating  excom- 
munication as  the  consequence  of  an  avowal  of  their  doctrines, 
have  always  studiously  concealed  their  sentiments  !  In  proof  of 
this  I  would  refer  to  the  very  popular  volume  above  named. 

My  position  is,  and  I  believe  most  sincerely  that  it  may  be 
maintained,  that  in  all  ages,  from  the  time  of  Ebion  to  the  pre- 
sent hour,  when  the  mass  of  the  surrounding  population  was 
orthodox.  Unitarians  have  manifested  a  disposition  to  conceal 
their  sentiments^  to  equivocate,  and  even  solemnly  deny  them 
when  questioned,  and  to  disguise  themselves  under  the  garb  of 
orthodoxy,  to  a  degree  which  no  other  sect,  calling  itself  Chris- 
tian, ever  manifested,"  p.  245.  The  truth  of  the  above  charge 
he  fully  proves  in  his  seventh  letter.  Irenaeus  says  :  it  was  the 
practice  in  his  day,  for  those  who  denit-d  the  Trinity,  to  **  use 
alluring  discourses — to  pretend  to  preach  like  us — and  to  complain 
that  although  their  doctrine  be  the  same  as  ours^  we  call  them 
heretics,"  In  like  manner,  Paul  of  Samosata^  who  also  denied 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  when  suspected  by  his  brethre  n, 
and  examined  on  the  subject  before  a  general  coun  ti!.  **  mani- 
fested so  much  skill  in  the  arts  of  concealment  and  equivocation, 
that  for  a  considerable  time  they  could  do  nothing  in  his  case. 
In  the  first  council  that  was  convened  to  try  him,  he  went  so 
far  as  to  declare  oii  oa</i,  that  he  h^ld  no  such  opinions  as  were 
imputed  to  him  !  but  it  was  soon  found,  that  he  had  acted  a  dis- 
ingenuous part,  and  was  beginning  again  to  propagate  the 
opinions  he  had  disavowed.  Anothe  r  council  was  called.  Again 
he  denied  and  prevaricated.  At  length  Malchion,  one  of  the 
39 


306 


clergy  of  the  church  of  Antioch,  had  the  address  and  the  fidel- 
ity to  interrogate  him  in  such  a  manner  and  with  such  effect, 
that  he  could  no  longer  escape  detection.  He  was  unanimously 
condemned  as  a  heretic,  and  deposed  from  the  ministry,"  p. 
162.  The  famous  Arms,  when  summoned  hefore  a  general 
council,  «  discovered  a  strong  disposition  to  evade  and  equivo- 
cate, and  actually  baffled  for  some  time,  the  attempts  of  the  most 
ingenious  and  learned  of  the  orthodox,  to  specify  and  bring  to 
light  his  errors.  At  length,  by  adopting  some  expressions  of 
discriminating  import,  they  succeeded  in  detecting  and  exhi- 
biting his  opinions  in  their  real  deformity,"  p.  166.  Arius  after- 
wai  ds,  when  patronized  by  the  emperor,  acknowledged  and 
defended  his  heresy. 

The  same  sy  stem  of  evasion  and  concealment  was  practised 
by  Laelius  and  Faustus  Socinus  ;  and  it  is  well  know  n,  that  till 
latt'ly  the  same  deception  was  practised  by  the  Anti-trinitarians 

J^ew 'England.  Under  Bible  terms  and  phrases,  they  preached 
nothing  more  than  naUiralrdigion,  Yet  when  suspected  by  their 
orthodox  brethren,  they  resented, — wlien  questioned,  they 
equivocated, — when  charged  they  denied.  And  never  until  an 
entangling  net  of  circumstances  brought  them  to  a  stand,  did 
they  avow  their  heresy.  At  present  however,  they  do  not  deny 
their  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  this  statement  of  historical 
facts,  because  on  the  same  system  of  disingenuous  policy,  ijour 
society  has  ever  acted.  You  have  never  dared  to  avow  your  sen- 
timents on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  ;  and  you  dare  not  jit 
THIS  TIME.  An  avowal  of  your  sentiments  on  this  subject, 
would  strike  the  Christian  community  with  surprise  and  horror ! 
In  the  name  of  the  Christian  community,  I  have  repeatedly 
asked  a  statement  of  your  doctrine  on  this  subject,  and  six 
months  ago  offered  to  postpone  every  other  topic  till  this  point 
was  settled  ;  but  notwithstanding  your  repeated  pledge  to  take 
up  old  charges  before  you  entered  on  those  of  recent  date,''  you 
have  repeatedly  waived  the  subject,  and  seem  still  disposed  to 
pass  to  other  topics  of  minor  consequence.  There  is  nothing 
equivocal  in  this  conduct,  the  public  well  understand  it,  youk 
DOCTRINES  WILL  NOT  BEAR  THE  LIGHT.  If  you  think  they 
will,  please  give  an  honest  unevasive  answer  to  the  following 
questions; 

1.  Do  you  believe  the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity?  2.  Do  you  consider  Anti-trinitarians  as  in  a  funda- 
mental error  ?  3.  Can  you  justify  your  silence  on  this  subject  ? 

PAUL. 


307 


Seventh-day^  6th  mo.  15,  1822. 
LETTER  XXIX. 

In  my  last  communication,  I  noticed  some  of  my  opponent's 
observations  and  arguments,  in  his  "Episode"  on  "  ministerial 
support,"  and  stated,  at  the  conclusion,  that  it  was  my  intention 
to  reply  to  others,  which  my  limits  then  prevented  me  from 
noticing.  In  compliance  with  this  intention  i  shall  now  proceed. 

**  This  controversy,  **  says  Paul,"  if  it  has  had  no  other  has 
already  had  one  good  effect,  it  has  opened  the  eyes  of  the  com- 
munity to  the  danger  of  your  doctrines."  Mtj  greatest  fear, 
however,  is,  that  the  eyes  of  the  community  are  yet  hut  very 
partially  opened  to  the  <•  danger  of  our  doctrines!"  There  is,  I 
believe,  much  more  danger  to  be  expected  from  them,  than 
either  **  Paul"  or  the  public  are  aw  are  of.  It  would  give  Ami- 
cus great  pleasure  to  be  the  humble  instrument  of  laying  be- 
fore the  community  the  extent  of  that  danger. 

In  the  first  place,  they  are  very  dangerous  to  the  cause  of 
sin  and  corruption.  They  attack** the  strong  man  armed"  in  the 
very  centre  ot  his  fortification ! — They  lay  the  "  axe  to  the 
roo^  of  the  corrupt  tree!" — They  apply  a  cleansing  power  to 
the  inside  of  the  cup  and  platter."  Instead  of  amusing  the 
sinner  with  a  round  of  lifeless  forms  and  ceremonies,  they 
introduce  him  at  once  to  •*  the  washing  pool,"  to  the  fountain 
for  sin  and  uncleanness." — Instead  of  saying  :  <*  lo  here  !  or  lo 
there,"  they  say  :  «  believe  them  not,  for  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  within  you."  Luke  xvii.  21.  They  represent  Christianity, 
not  as  consisting  in  a  subscription  to  dogmas  and  creeds,  but 
as  an  internal  powerful  principle^  condemning  sin  and  desti'oying 
the  very  seeds  of  transgression  ! — as  the  <*  little  leaven  !" — 
little  in  its  first  appearance,  but  efficient  in  its  nature,  and  able, 
if  submitted  to,  <»to  leaven  the  whole  lump,"  change  the  whole 
man  ! — and  of  a  sinner  to  make  him  holv  !  This  is  very  danger- 
ous doctrine  to  every  thing  that  is  evil ! 

In  the  second  place,  they  are  dangerous  to  the  very  existence 
of  bigotry  and  superstition.  They  teach  the  universal  love  of 
God  to  mankind !  and  as  they  lead  us,  not  to  depend  upon  any 
human  means  for  instruction  or  salvation,  but  upon  Christ  the 
anointed  teacher  of  the  new  covenant,  so,  they  do  not  subject 
us  to  be  imposed  upon  by  the  errors  and  misconceptions  of  men, 
w  hose  interest  or  ambition  would  enlist  us  to  defend  their  party, 
or  promote  their  unhallowed  schemes  !  Many,  I  have  no  doubt, 
w  ill  condemn  this  doctrine  as  "  fundamentally  errom  ous  ! ! !" 

In  the  third  place,  they  are  very  dangerous  to  priestcraft/ — 
They  teacli  that  colleges  and  theological  seminaries,  can 
neither  make  a  minister  of  the  Gospel,  nor  qualify  him  for  the 


SOS 


work  of  an  Evangelist !  On  the  contrary,  that  they  are  the 
greatest  enemies  to  a  pure  Gospel  ministry.  They  teacli,  that  the 
qualifications  of  a  true  minister  of  Christ,  are  not  received  from 
man — according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle,  Gal.  i.  11»  12, 
«But  I  certify  you  brethren,  that  the  Gospel  which  was  preach- 
ed of  me,  is  not  after  man,  for  I  neither  received  it  of  man, 
neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ 
and,  as  we  believe  this  kind  of  ministry,  to  be  the  only  true  mi- 
nistry of  the  Christian  churchy  so,  our  doctrine  must  be  very  dan- 
gerous to  a  man-made  mercenary  priesthood,  and  consequently, 
we  need  not  wonder  that  «*  many  are  surprised  and  astonislied 
at  our  doctrines." 

But  this  is  not  the  only  danger  that  priestcraft  may  appre- 
hend from  our  doctrines  ;  for  they  teach  that  the  Gospel  should 
be  preached  "  without  money  and  without  price" — that  genuine 
Gospel  ministry  has  its  foundation  in  the  love  of  God  and  man  ! 
that  its  reward  is  the  consciousness  of  having  fulfilled,  "  w  ithout 
charge,"  the  service  of  Christ ;  according  to  the  doctrine  and 
practice  of  the  Apostle — <*  If  1  do  this  thing  willingly  I  have  a 
reward!" — What  is  my  reward  then:  Verily  that  when  I 
preach  the  Gospel,  I  may  make  the  Gospel  without  charge^^* 
1  Cor.  ix.  17,  IS.  A  noble  reward  truly  !  and  worthy  the 
dignified  character  of  this  laborious  tent-makek  and  eminent 
Apostle,  who  preferred  death  to  the  imputation  of  selfishness  in 
the  glorious  work  of  the  Gospel :  see  1  Cor.  ix.  15.  Whdit  dan- 
gerous doctrine  the  Apostle  taught !  1  suppose  "  many  are  asto- 
nished'^ at  it ! 

But  the  dangers  of  our  doctrine  are  very  numerous — should 
I  attempt  to  portray  them,  1  should  be  accused  of  <*  prolixity." 
I  will  however  briefly  attempt  to  describe  a  few  of  them. 

In  the  fourth  place,  they  are  dangerous  to  the  spirit  of  war  I 
They  teach  that  the  day  has  come,  that  the  sword"  ought  to 
be  ^<  beaten  into  ploughshares  and  the  spears  into  pruning 
hooks" — that  «  peace  on  earth  and  good  will  to  men"  is  the 
language  and  spirit  of  the  Gospel  dispensation.  If  this  doc- 
trine should  prevail,  not  only  the  military  officer  would  lose  his 
commission  !  not  only  a  host  of  chaplains^  in  the  armies  o[ fight- 
ing Christians,  would  lose  their  places !  but  human  butchery 
would  cease  to  be  followed  as  a  trade  ! ! !  It  must  be  obvious  that 
this  doctrine  is  calculated  to    astonish"  many. 

In  the  fifth  place,  they  are  dangerous  to  the  swearing  system 
in  civil  society.  They  teach,  that  Christians  are  bound  by  the 
positive  command  of  Christ,  to  swear  not  at  all;''  and  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostle  James:  "Above  all  things  my  brethren 
swear  not,  neither  by  the  heavens,  neither  by  the  earth,  neither 
by  any  other  oath,''  Now  if  this  doctrine  should  obtain  an  ascen- 


309 


(lency,  and  plain  honest  truth  should  be  substituted  for  swearing;, 
how  many  lees  for  administering  oaths,  would  be  arrested  in 
their  progress  to  the  purses  of  those,  who  feed  on  the  folly  and 
wickedness  of  mankind  ?  But  this  is  not  the  only  danger  of  this 
brancli  of  our  doctrine — there  would  be  a  danger,  if  swearing 
were  abolished,  ihsit  perjury  might  cease!  and  that  all  actions 
for  this  crime  might  disappear  from  the  docket !  I  am  per- 
suaded that  *^  many"  will  think  our  doctrine  on  this  head  ♦<  fun- 
damentally erroneous ! ! !" 

In  the  sixth  place,  our  doctrines  are  dangerous  to  human 
slavery  !  They  teach  that  "  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons," — 
that  man  **  should  do  unto  others  as  he  would  they  should  do 
unto  him," — that  the  Creator  made  of  one  blood  all  nations, 
to  dwell  on  the  face  of  the  earth  !" — that  all  men  are  born  equal, 
and  have  an  unalienable  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness."  In  the  consequences  of  this  doctrine,  how  many 
are  concerned?  The  slave  driver,  the  slave  holder,  the  dealer 
in  human  flesh — in  the  blood,  bones  and  sinews  of  God's  ratio- 
nal family  ! — the  smith  who  forges  manacles,  neck  collars  and 
chains,  to  bind  his  poor  fellow  creature  a  slave  to  the  caprice  and 
cruelty  of  the  professed  followers  of  a  compassionate  Redeemer, 
are  all  concerned  to  unite  with  my  opponent  in  condemning 
our  doctrines  as  fundamentally  erroneous"  and  very  "  dan- 
gerous ! ! !" 

And  lastly — Were  our  doctrines  to  prevail,  there  would  be 
great  danger,  that  many  modern  Christians  would  be  deprived 
of  the  chaste  and  christian-like  enjoyments  of  the  theatre,  ball 
room,  masquerade,  and  many  others,  that  will  suggest  them- 
selves to  those,  who  are  acquainted  with  our  habits  and  man- 
ners. <«  Paul,"  in  his  first  address  to  us  has  told  us,  how  much 
he  admired  our  "  efficient  internal  discipline,"  our  «  morality," 
our  <*  civil  integrity,"  &c.  &c.  the  dangers  of  which  to  those  who 
dislike  restraint*  and  prefer  creeds  and  catechisms  to  morality^' 
or    civil  integrity,^^  must  be  very  obvious  ! 

Upon  the  whole,  I  think  that  the  many  dangers  attendant  on 
our  doctrines^,  have  placed  both  priests  and  profligates  in  the 
same  predicament ;  they  must  all  heartily  wish  us  out  of  the 
way,  and  if  they  could,  would  ^^fx  a  great  gulf"  between  them 
an4  us !  As  long  as  the  society  I  advocate  hold  up  a  clear  tes- 
timony against  priestcraft  and  Simony,  they  will  never  want 
enemies,  until  the  days  come  that  were  foretold  by  the  pro- 
phet, when  "  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  shall  feed  together,  and  the 
lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  bullock,  and  dust  shall  be  the  ser- 
pent's meat,"  Isaiah  Ixv.  25. 

But  my  opponent,  alluding  to  the  text,  1  Cor.  ix.  8,18,  which 
he  has  very  partially  quoted,  leaving  out  four  whole  verses ! 


310 


says :  **  /  only  follow  Apostolic  example" — that  is,  in  taking  mo- 
ney  for  preaching,  1  only  follow  the  example  of  the  Apostle  !  In 
this  short  sentence,  he  lias,  in  the  first  place,  told  us,  that  he  is 
one  of  the  **  hireling  shoplierds"  who  ♦»  look  for  their  gain  from 
their  quarter  a  circumstance  that  sufficiently  accounts  for  his 
zeal  on  the  present  occasion,  as  well  as  for  the  sentiments  and 
style  of  his  preceding  addresses  to  the  Society  of  Friends.'* 
In  the  second  place,  he  has  convinced  us,  that  wlien  a  darling 
object  is  in  view,  he  is  not  very  scrupulous  auout  the  means  of 
attaining  it!  His  assertion  is  evidently  intended  to  convey  tlic 
idea,  that  the  Apostle  had  a  salary  for  officiating  as  a  minis- 
ter!  ! !  Instead  of  aspiring  to  the  dignified  and  truly  honoura- 
ble standing  of  this  eminent  servant  of  Christ,  he  would  wil- 
lingly degrade  him  to  the  character  of  a  mercenary  parish 
priest!  The  idea  of  fixing  a  minister  to  a  certain  district, 
with  a  salary  for  his  maintenance,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
whole  New-Testament.  The  truth  is,  that  all  the  ministers  of 
the  primitive  church,  were  called  and  qualified  for  their  holy 
office  by  the  <»  Holy  Spirit" — they  went  forth  in  the  service  of 
Christ,  under  the  particular  direction  of  their  Divine  master, 
and,  in  obedience  to  his  command,  freely  ye  have  received, 
freely  give,"  they  invited  all  to  come  unto  Christ,  the  only 
fountain  of  life,  and  drink  of  the  heavenly  stream,  "  without 
money  and  without  price  ;"  and  until  the  ministry  of  the  church 
is  restored  to  its  primitive  state — until  the  command  of  our 
Lord  is  literally  obeyed,  there  will  be  division  and  contention 
among  Christians — *<  the  gall  of  bitterness"  will  be  poured  into 
the  cup  of  our  communion — "the  bond  of  iniquity"  will  never 
be  wholly  loosed  ! 

In  confirmation  of  this  sentiment,  let  us  only  glance  an  eye 
over  the  pages  of  Ecclesiastical  history,  from  the  second  cen- 
tury of  our  era,  when  the  clergy,  (as  Mosheim  informs  us,) 

had  the  good  fortune  to  persuade  the  people,  that  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Christian  church  succeeded  to  the  character,  rights, 
and  privileges  of  the  Jewish  priesthood,'*  down  to  the  time  that 
my  opponent  asserted  "  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  law,  when  all 
Judah  brought  the  tithe  of  the  corn,  and  the  new  wine,  and  the 
oil"  for  the  priest,  *<  is  still  binding ;"  and  we  shall  plainly 
perceive,  that  a  mercenary  clergy  have  been  the  principal 
source  of  all  the  darkness  that  has  overspread  the  church,  both 
in  doctrine  and  practice — of  all  the  corruption  that  has  dis- 
graced it — of  all  the  persecution  that  has  afflicted  it — of  all  the 
divisions  and  dissentions  that  have  weakened  and  wasted  it ! 
From  the  time  of  Constantine  their  friend,  down  to  the  reign 
of  James  I.  of  England,  and  indeed  down  to  the  present  time, 
in  all  countries  where  they  could  make  an  alliance  with  the 


311 


civil  authorities,  they  have  used  the  sword  and  the  gibhct—- 
fag.^ots  and  fire — whips,  chains,  and  dungeons,  to  enforce  their 
decrees,  and  bend  the  spirit  of  the  people  to  their  ambitious 
and  corrupt  designs ! 

Ilow  solemn  is  the  warning  voice  of  history  on  this  momen- 
tous subject !  How  strongly  should  it  stimulate  every  Christian 
society,  to  exert  all  their  energies  to  eradicate  this  germ  of  apos- 
tacy,  to  lop  off  this  anti-scriprural  branch  of  the  Romish  hier- 
archy !  a  branch  that  has  produced  more  bitter  fruit — more 
deleterious  effects,  than  any  other  that  can  be  named  !  For 
twelve  centuries,  it  hung  a  dark  and  deadly  cloud  over  the 
Greek  and  Romish  churches — it  has  darkened  the  bright  morn- 
|j  ing  of  the  reformation,  and  remains  a  blot  and  disgrace  to  the 
'  profession  of  the  purest  and  best  religion  that  was  ever  reveal- 
ed to  the  human  family  ! 

In  the  exposition  of  the  most  undeniable  truths,  Amicus 
would  not,  however,  be  understood  to  manifest  an  indiscri- 
minate opposition  to  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  not  of  our  so- 
ciety." A  true  minister  of  the  Gospel  of  any  religious  deno- 
mination, is  the  highest  visible  object  of  my  veneration  and 
esteem  !  I  am  without  bigotry  on  this  subject — I  have  no  doubt, 
that  Divine  goodness  has  raised  up  and  qualified  some  such  in 
every  Christian  community,  under  every  formula  of  religious 
worship.  The  Catholics  have  had  their  Kempises,"  and  their 
Fenelons" — and  the  Protestants  their  »*  de  la  Flecheres," 
and  their  "John  Newtons,"  and  their  "Wesleys,"  and  their 
*«  Lardners" — with  many  others  that  I  could  name  but  for 
fear  of  <•  prolixity men,  who  have  had  more  regard  to  the 
honour  of  God,  and  the  salvation  of  his  children,  than  to  any 
earthly  object !  and  who,  I  trust,  having  turned  many  to 
righteousness,  will  shine  as  stars  in  the  heavenly  firmament, 
for  ever  and  ever.''  It  is  not  the  ministers  of  other  societies 
that  we  oppose — it  is  their  errors — it  is  a  hireling  ministry^^ — 
it  is  Simony,  the  bane  and  disgrace  of  the  Christian  church. 
Our  censures  fall  not  on  ministers,  as  ministers,  they  fall  on  a 
mercenary  priesthood,  whether  it  be  found  among  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians, Mahometans  or  Hindoos  !  !  ! 

But,  says  *'  Paul,"  "  Your  practice  ought  to  teach  you  more 
||k  charity  on  this  subject."  That  kind  of  charity,  however,  which 
"  my  opponent  would  cultivate,  is  a  false  charittj-^it  is  a  charity 
that  would  tolerate  a  most  pernicious  error,  that  would  foster  a 
serpent  in  the  bosom  of  the  church,  whose  desperate  wound 
ages  will  not  heal — whose  poison  has  infected  the  channels  of 
instruction,  and  spread  a  deadly  torpor  among  the  professors 
of  Christianity.  Our  practice  can  never  teach  us  this  kind  of 
charity  !  It  is  the  result  of  a  sound  and  wholesome  charity,  that 


312 


commiserates  the  'state  of  the  poor,  whether  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  or  the  obscurest  members  of  the  church.  We  make 
no  distinction  in  the  provision  for  the  necessitous.  The  only 
question  is,  «*  Does  he  need  ?"— «  Are  his  efforts  to  obtain  a 
livelihood  inefficient  ?"  If  they  are,  a  competent  aid  is  afford- 
ed— if  to  a  minister,  not  because  he  is  a  minister,  but  because  he 
is  in  want — not  to  minister  to  his  luxury,  but  to  his  necessity  ! 
This  is  all  !  To  do  less  would  be  a  sin,"  if  not  against  *•  ho- 
nesty,'' yet  against  charity !  Tlie  assertion,  that  <*  a  poor 
preacher,  who  should  come  down  from  Philadelphia  to  Wil- 
mington, to  perform  a  labour  of  love  among  us,  would  probably 
receive  double  the  compensation  from  our  society,  that  a  preach- 
er of  any  other  denomination  would  receive  from  his  society, 
for  similar  services,"  is  without  the  least  foundation,  unless 
other  societies  would  give  him  only  half  enough  to  eat.  We 
would  not  «  muzzle"  his  mouth,  nor  refuse  him  an  asylum  for 
the  night.  A  want  of  hospitality  has  never  been  charged  on 
the  society  by  its  bitterest  enemies — any  thing  more  we  should 
be  ashamed  to  offer,  and  our  guest  would  be  still  more  ashamed 
to  receive.  No  minister  amongst  us  ever  received  a  cent,  as  a 
compensation  for  religious  services.  Let  Paul"  prove  this 
assertion  incorrect  in  a  single  instance,  since  the  days  of  George 
Fox,  if  he  can  ! 

If  nothing  should  occur  to  divert  me  from  my  present  pur- 
pose, I  shall  notice  the  last  address  of  my  opponent  in  my  next 
communication.  AMICUS. 

Saturday y  June  22,  1822. 

LETTER  XXIX. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

If  nothing  should  occur,"  says  "  Amicus,"  "  to  divert  me 
from  my  present  purpose,  I  shall  notice  the  last  address  of  my 
opponent  in  my  next  communication  ;"  i.  e.  if  the  sun  does  not 
rise  within  a  fortnight,  he  will  make  a  candid  statement  of  your 
views  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  But,  gentle  reader,  if  the 
sun  should  rise,  or  the  tide  shoidd  ebb  and  flow  in  the  mean 
time,  rest  assured,  it  will  be  a  sufficient  "  occurrence"  to  **  di- 
vert him  from  his  purpose."  He  give  a  candid  statement! 
Reader,  if  you  expect  this,  you  will  be  disappointed.  He  would 
as  soon  cut  off  his  right  hand,  as  make  a  statement  that  would 
at  once  cutoff  him  and  your  society  from  the  Christian  church. 
In  fact,  this  wily  disputant  does  not  promise  such  a  statement  5 


313 


he  simply  says  he  will  «  notice"  my  last  address,  that  is,  allude 
to  it  in  a  distant  and  satisfactory  way.  After  six  months  soli- 
citation for  his  sentiments  on  a  vital  subject,  upon  wliieh  he 
ought  to  have  stated  his  sentiments  witliout  askings  he  very 
generously  promises  to  *<  notice"  the  subject.  Wondrous  con- 
descensiim  !  to  waste  his  precious  time  in  telling  us  what  God  he 

.  worships  !  when  he  might  be  so  much  mor^'  profitably  employed 
in  telling  us  the  difference  between  >ea  and  yes;  between  a  drab 
coat  and  a  black  one  between  giving  to  a  minister  because  he 
is  poor,  and  giving  to  him  because  he  is  a  minister;  between 
paying  a  preacher  behind  the  curtain,  and  paying  him  in  open 
day!  How  much  more  important  to  be  thus  **tything  mint, 

t  anise  and  cummin,"  than  attending  to  the  weightier  matters 
of  the  law  !" 

Reader,  I  am  not  disposed  to  trifle  either  with  your  time  or 
J  patience,  in  noticing  his  last  address ;  but  would  proceed  im- 
mediately to  a  new  subject,  did  I  not  know  that  this  is  just  what 
<*  Amicus"  wants,  who  would  immediately  make  it  the  occasion 
-  of  concealing  still  longer  his  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity.  He  and  the  society  to  which  he  belongs,  would  gladly 
have  you  believe,  it  is  of  little  consequence  what  God  a  man 
worships,  "  Jehovah,  Jove,  or  Lord,"  provided  he  gives  him 
the  title  of  God.  And  so  long  as  you  trust  in  "  Christ"  for  sal- 
vation, that  it  is  of  little  consequence  who  or  what  you  mean  by 
this  title,  whether  a  distinct  person  of  the  Trinity,  or  mere 
conscience.  And  provided  you  talk  a  great  deal  about  the 
Spirit,"  it  is  of  little  consequence  whether  you  mean  the 
Spirit  of  God,  or  a  false  spirit.  In  short,  provided  you  use 
Scriptural  termSf  it  is  not  essential  you  should  hold  one  Scrip' 
tural  idea. 

Should  "  Amicus"  condescend  to  tell  us  any  thing  upon  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity,  he  will  probably  endeavour  to  evade — 
1.  By  finding  fault  with  the  term,  as  not  found  in  Scripture.  The 
same  fault  may  be  found  with  half  the  words  used  in  preaching 
or  in  religious  conversation,  and  our  language  would  be  barren 
indeed,  and  preachers  very  much  fettered,  if  they  could  never 
use  a  word  but  what  the  Apostles  used.  So  long  as  we  confine 
ourselves  to  the  doctrines  of  Scripture,  we  are  at  liberty  to 
I  choose  the  most  expressive  terms.  And  if  you  do  not  deny  the 
'  doctrine  of  the  Bible  T)n  this  subject,  we  care  little  about  the 
term.  Any  evasion,  therefore,  on  this  point,  the  public  will  ob- 
serve. The  question  is,  do  you  hold  the  doctrine  which  Chris- 
tians express  by  the  term     Trinity  ?" 

2.  He  may  evade,  by  saying,  *<  we  believe  in  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."    Answer ;  so  did  Socinus,  hut  he 
denied  the  divinity  of  both  Son  and  Spirit.    "  But  we  acknow- 
40 


314 


ledge  the  divinittf  of  the  Son  and  Spirit.'*  Answer ;  so  did  Sa- 
bellkis,  yet  he  held  there  was  but  one  person  in  the  Godhead. 
Tiie  same  Person  who  in  Heaven  is  called  the  Father,  (accord- 
ing to  his  system,)  when  incarnate,  is  called  the  Son,  and  when 
diffused  among  Christians,  is  called  the  Boly  Ghost.  (This, 
I  think,  is  the  common  sentiment  among  your  society.  But 
any  one  will  perceive  at  a  glance,  that  this  at  once  destroys  all 
idea  of  atonement,  unless  the  same  person  could  atone  to  himself, 
and  also  nullifies  other  fundamental  truths.)  Many  other  eva- 
sions he  may  make,  if  so  disposed  ;  but  if  he  is  willing  to  make 
a  fair  statement  of  your  sentiments  on  this  fundamental  point, 
let  him  state  distinctly  what  he  understands,  and  what  your  so- 
ciety understand  by  the  terms  **  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'* 
Do  you  understand  them  to  be  three  distinct  names  of  the  same 
person?  or  three  distinct ;;erso?is  of  the  same  Godhead? 

There  are  two  things  in  his  last  address  which  I  would  no- 
tice at  this  time,  were  I  not  afraid  he  will  take  advantage  of 
any  other  subject  I  may  touch,  to  waive  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity.    I  will,  however,  run  the  risk. 

The  first  regards  his  remarks  on  the  subject  of  "  war,  the- 
atres and  slavery,''  all  of  which  are  very  good  in  their  place ; 
but  in  relation  to  this  controvervsy  are  mere  waste  paper,  and 
are  no  more  in  point  than  a  dissertation  upon  drunkenness.  On 
these  subjects  we  have  no  dispute.  On  these  subjects,  so  far 
from  bringing  any  charge  against  you,  in  the  very  commence- 
ment of  this  correspondence,  I  avowed  my  approbation  of  your 
doctrines.    I  will  thank     Amicus"  to  observe  his  own  rule, 

to  answer  old  charges,  before  he  takes  up  those  of  recent 
date" — or  takes  up  charges  that  were  never  brought.  His 
whole  design  in  taking  up  these  trifling  subjects  at  this  time, 
appears  to  be  to  divert  the  attention  the  public  from  a  subject 
on  which  he  feels  himself  severely  pinched  !  The  above  sub- 
jects, strictly  speaking,  are  no  part  of  religion,  any  more  than 
the  buttons  of  your  coat  are  a  part  of  your  soul.  A  man,  on 
principles  of  mere  humanity  and  sound  policy,  may  be  as  strong- 
ly opposed  to  oaths,  slavery  and  war,  as  any  of  your  society 
can  be,  and  yet  be  a  deist  or  an  atheist.  What  should  hinder? 
Your  opposition  to  these  civil  and  political  evils,  therefore,  does 
not  prove  you  a  Christian  society,  though  I  fear  that  the  greater 
part  of  your  "  Christianity"  lies  in  such  superficial  virtues. 

The  other  thing  which  I  would  notice,  is  the  high  compliment 
he  pays  the  Christian  religion  ;  he  calls  it  *<  the  purest  and 
best  religion  that  was  ever  revealed  to  the  human  family!!" 
He  does  not  consider  it  the  only  religion  that  ever  was  reveal- 
ed ;  but  of  the  many  systems  which  have  been  revealed,  he 
he  thinks  this  the  «  purest  and  best."    Accordingly,  some  time 


315 

since,  he  ridiculed  the  idea  of  attempting  to  convert  the  Hin- 
doos to  our  kind  of  religion."  And  1  have  one  of  your  Tracts 
lyin^  by  me,  entitled  Thoughts  on  Reason  and  Revelation, 
especuillij  the  revelation  of  the  Scnptures,^'  All  which  are  in- 
dicative of  your  lax  sentiments  on  this  subject.  Now,  a  per- 
son of  your  style  of  sentiment,  might  go  on  to  say,  <*  of  all  the 
Gods  ever  worshipped,  Jehovah  is  one  of  the  greatest  and  the 
best !" — *•  Of  all  the  Saviours  ever  trusted  in,  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth is  one  of  the  safest  and  best, — not  excepting  Mahomet, 
Confucius,  or  George  Fox:'' — Of  all  the  Bibles  in  the  world, 
that  of  the  Jews  is  by  far  the  finest  and  best."  Nosv,  what 
Christian  does  not  abhor  such  compliments  ! ! !  Cliristianity  ab- 
hors such  comparisons,  and  condemns  all  other  **  religions,"  as 
mucli  as  truti)  does  a  lie.  The  Gospel  pronounces  all  other 
systems,  and  those  who  preach  them,  "accursed."  Gal.  i.  6. 
The  Bible  does  not  say,  **  there  is  no  better  name,"  but  "  there 
is  NONE  oTHEK  name  given  under  heaven  whereby  we  can  be 
saved."  And  to  deny  Christianity  this  exclusive  divinity,  has 
always  been  considered  equivalent  to  a  total  rejection  of  her  au- 
thority. 

The  public  will  forgive  me  for  occasionally  noticing  such  in- 
cidental declarations  of  my  opponent ;  as  it  is  from  these  ex- 
pressions, w  hen  your  writers  are  off  their  guard,  your  secret 
sentiments  are  betrayed.  You  always  appear,  especially  in 
controversy,  as  all  heretics  love  to  appear,  en  masque  ;  and  it 
is  only  when  in  an  unguarded  moment  the  mask  drops  olf,  w^e 
can  detect  your  real  character,  and  put  you  to  the  blush  !  On 
the  subject  of  ministerial  support,  if  *•  Amicus"  chooses  to  re- 
new the  subject,  after  we  shall  have  discussed  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  I  will  correspond  with  him  till  he  is  tired.  PAUL. 



Seveiiih'day^  Gth  mo.  29,  1822. 

LETTER  XXX. 

«  But  this  I  confess  unto  thee^  that,  after  the  way  which  they  (the 
priests)  call  heresy  so  worsJiip  I  the  God  of  my  fathers,  believ. 
ing  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  law  and  the  prophets,^^ 
Acts  xxiv.  li. 

It  is  no  new  thing  fortliosc  who  hold  up  the  truth  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  errors  of  interested  men,  to  be  charged  with  hercs?!. 
So  early  as  the  time  of  Christ-s  ministry,  we  find  "the  chief 
Priests  and  the  Pharisees*'  in  council  against  the  Lord's  anoint- 
ed, saying  :     if  w  e  let  him  thus  alone  all  men  will  believe  on 


316 


him,  and  the  Romans  will  come  and  take  away  our  place,^'  John 
xi.  48.  This  was  a  pinching  circumstance  for  these  mercenary 
priests  !  To  them  "  all  Judah  brought  the  tithe  of  the  corn  and 
the  wine  and  the  oil." — It  was  their  place  to  receive  these  offer- 
ings under  the  old  Law. — But  when  Christ  came  to  introduce 

a  more  excellent  ministry,  which  was  established  upon  better 
promises,"  Heb.  viii.  6.  teaching  the  doctrine,  freely  ye  have 
received,  freely  give," — •*  from  that  day  forth  they  took  counsel 
together  to  put  him  to  death."  To  lose  one's  place  is  a  serious 
consideration  under  any  circumstance  ;  but  for  a  luxurious  idle 
set  of  men,  unaccustomed  to  honest  occupation,  to  lose  their 
place,  is  intolerable  ! — And  a  woe,  as  far  as  may  be  in  tlieir 
power,  shall  be  denounced  and  inflicted  upon  every  individual 
or  society  that  dare  to  deprive  them  of  it ! 

In  proof  of  tliis  position,  we  refer  to  the  conduct  of  Ananias 
the  hi^h  priest,  toward  the  Apostle  Paul,  Acts  xxiii.  This  dis- 
interested Ap(»stle  had  been  engaged  in  his  ministry,  to  shew, 
that  by  the  coming  and  death  of  Christ  **  the  handwriting  of 
ordinances  was  taken  out  of  the  way,"  the  priesthood  that  took 
tithes  was  changed;  a  pure,  spiritual,  and /ree  ministry  sub- 
stituted, and  consequentK  that  Ananias  and  his  colleagues  must 
lose  their  places.  Now  mark  the  conduct  of  the  priests,  and  we 
sliall  see  that  it  presents  us  with  a  perfect  model  of  their  into- 
lerant proceedings  in  all  the  succeeding  ages  of  the  church  1 

At  this  time  the  territory  called  *»  the  holy  land"  was  under 
the  civil  authority  of  the  Romans;  of  course  the  priests  had 
little  more  than  the  power  to  censure  or  vilify  their  opponents  ! 
This  want  of  power  thev  endeavoured  to  supply  by  injluence  I 
As  they  could  not  inflict  corporeal  punishment  on  Paul,  they  used 
every  means  to  induce  the  civil  authorities  to  do  it  for  them. — 
For  this  purpose  they  hrought  *«  a  certain  orator,  named  Ter- 
tullus,"  who,  well  skilled  in  the  sophistry  of  their  theological 
school,  was  selected  as  their  mouth- piece.  But  this  college- 
bred  rhetorician,  though  a  willing  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
the  priests,  had  a  difficulty  to  encounter  which  put  him  to  his 
wits  end. — The  civil  p«)wers  could  not  punish  opinions,  they 
sought  for  facts,  whereon  to  ground  a  legal  process,  some  overt 
act  at  least,  which  had  a  tendency  to  subvert  the  Roman  govern- 
ment or  injure  the  constitution  of  ci^  il  society. — INow  every 
part  of  the  Apostle's  conduct — every  principle  of  his  religion 
were  directed  to  promote  the  peace  and  hapi)inessof  man,  both 
in  this  world  and  in  thatwMiich  is  to  come,  and  poor  Tertiillus, 
like  my  oppiment  in  our  case,  had  to  point  to  the  horrible  con- 
sequences of  his  faith — had  to  tell  the  chief  cajitain  that  the 
Ap'»stle  was  <*  a  pestilent  fellow" — *«  a  mover  of  sedition" — **a 
ring  leader  of  the  sect  of  the  Nazarenes." — Like  a  skilful 


317 


orator,  lie  deals  first  in  general  charges,  reserving  his  heaviest 
accusation  to  the  last — A  ring  leader  of  the  sect  of  tne  Naza- 
renes !"  heresy  !  heresy  ! 

In  his  first  address  **  Paul"  tells  us,  that  he  "should  do  in- 
justice to  himself  and  us,  not  to  acknowledge  his  approbation  of 
our  general  character.  Of  our  morality  and  amiabiliiy,  our 
civil  integrity,  alftctionate  manners,  examplary  simplicity, 
our  prudence  and  economy  ;  and,  he  adds,  of  our  efficient  inter- 
nal discipline,  he  has  the  highest  admiration  !"  In  a  subseqcient 
production,  page  62,  he  acknowledges  his  "  full  belief,  that 
there  are  amongst  us  real  saints  It  seems  he  can  find  as 
little  fault  with  our  character  as  Tertullus  found  with  that 
of  the  Apostle  !  But  all  this  will  not  do !  If  w  e  cannot  sub- 
scribe to  the  absurd  and  unscriptural  doctrines  of  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed,  if  we  cannot  believe  impossibilities,  we  cannot  be 
Christians,  and  like  Tertullus,  our  redoubtable  opponent  raises 
the  cry  of  heresy  !  heresy  !  It  is  well  for  us,  that  here  his  power 
terminates  I 

But  though  his  power  terminates  here,  he  fondly  hopes  bis 
influence  may  extend  a  little  further. — He  has  endeavoured  to 
prepossess  his  reader  with  an  idea  that  we  are  not  only  heretics, 
but  conscious  heretics — that  we  not  only  hold  erroneous  doc- 
trines, but  know  them  to  be  erroneous  I  that  lest  our  errors  on  this 
subject  should  come  to  light,  we  have,  since  the  days  of  our 
founder,  generally  maintained  a  suspicious  silence/'  In  pub- 
lishing to  the  world  such  a  sentiment,  **  Paul"  has  either 
been  guilty  of  wilful  misrepresentation  or  of  inexcusable  igno- 
rance, as  the  writings  of  our  most  distinguished  authors,  pub- 
lished more  than  a  century  ago,  will  abundantly  demonstrate. 
George  Fox  in  his  *•  Great  Mistery  Unfolded,"  is  very  full  and 
clear  on  this  subject;  Francis  Howgill,  Isaac  Pennington, 
Thomas  Story,  William  Penn  and  maiiy  others,  very  explicitly 
declare  our  abhorrence  of  the  doctrine,  which  supposes  the 
distinct  existence  of  three  persons  in  One  God."  For  our  op- 
ponent to  say  we  have  never  dared  to  avow  our  sentiments  on 
the  subject  of  the  Trinity,"  is  to  shtMv  that  he  is  grossly  ignorant 
of  the  society  he  professes  to  describe,  I  know  of  no  people  who 
have  dared^  through  the  most  inhuman  persecution,  inflicted  on 
them  by  the  orthodox  Trinitarians^  so  fully  to  avow  their  senti- 
ments on  this  subject !  as  I  expect  by  quotations  from  their 
writings  clearly  to  demonstrate.  Whether  we  "dare  at  this 
time"  to  speak  plainly  to  this  question  will  soon  be  seen.  As 
truth  needs  no  disguise.  Amicus  has  no  fear  to  expose  her — as 
error  needs  only  to  be  seen  in  order  to  be  rejected  by  disinte- 
rested men,  so  Amicus  will  be  gratified  by  this  opportunity  to 
bring  her  to  the  light.  As  to  the  cry  of  «  heresy," — the  last 


318 


resort  of  a  mercenary  clergy — the  last  refuge  of  a  waning 
priestliood,  it  were  perhaps  too  hard  to  deprive  then™  of  it,  even 
if  we  might ;  we  will  therefore  leave  them,  in  the  undisturbed 
possession  of  all  the  comfort,  which,  in  this  enlightened  age,  it 
is  calculated  to  afford  them  !  ?! 

1  now  proceed  to  consider  *<  Paul's"  three  queries  contained 
in  his  xxviiith  address  to  us,  pages  304,305, — tow  hicii,  when 
he  clearly  and  honestly  explains  himself,  I  shall  he  very 
glad  to  give  •*  an  honest  unevasive  answer!" — And  first:  <*Do 
you  believe  the  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?" 
Now  I  honestly  declare,  that  I  never  knew  that  there  was  any 
eommonly  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  !  The  Trinitarians 
are  so  split  to  pieces,  and  widely  divided  on  this  t«co7?ijjre/ie7i- 
sible  doctrine,  that  it  requires  more  discernment  than  has  fallen 
to  the  lot  of  Amicus,  to  discover  what  is  **  tlie  commonly  receiv- 
ed doctrine,"  or  whether  there  be  any  such !  Are  **  Waterland" 
and  the  rest  of  the  Athanasians  orthodox,  who  assert,  that 
«*  there  are  three  proper  distinct  persons  entirely  equal,  and  in- 
dependant  upon  each  other,  yet  making  up  one  and  the  same 
Being? — Or  is  <*  Howe"  correct,  who  supposes  there  are  three 
distinct  eternal  Spirits — or  distinct  intelligent  hypostases,  each 
having  his  ow  n  distinct  intelligent  nature,  united  in  such  an  in- 
explicable manner,  tliat,  on  account  of  their  perfect  harmony, 
consent,  affection,  and  mutual  self  consciousness,  they  may  be 
called  one  God,  as  properly,  as  the  different  corporeal,  sensi- 
tive, and  intellectual  natures  united,  may  be  called  one  man ; 
or,  are  Owen"  and  the  bishops  **  Pearson"  and  "  Bull"  in  the 
right,  who  are  of  tlie  opinion,  that,  *•  though  God  the  Father  is 
the  fountain  of  the  Deity,  the  whole  divine  nature  is  communicat- 
ed from  the  Father  to  the  Son,"  (and  so  the  Father  must  have 
no  divine  nature  left !)  and  the  whole  divine  nature  is  commu- 
nicated from  the  Father  and  the  Son  to  tlie  Holy  Spirit,"  (and 
so  the  Father  and  the  Son  must  have  no  divine  nature  left !)  and 
yet  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  not  separable  nor  separated 
from  the  Divinity,  but  still  exist  in  it,  and  are  most  intimately 
united  to  it !  !  ! — Or  is  *♦  Burnet"  in  the  true  faith,  who  main- 
tains that  there  is  one  self  existent,  and  two  dependant  beings 
in  the  Godhead  ?"  and  asserts,  that,  the  two  latter  are  so  united 
and  inhabited  by  the  former,  that  by  virtue  of  that  union,  divine 
perfections  may  be  ascribed,  and  divine  worship  be  paid  to 
them. — Or  is  Wallis"  a  safe  guide  to  orthodoxy,  who  thought 
the  distinction  between  the  three  persons  was  only  modal !  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  archbishop  Tillotson  ! !"  Or  was 
*<  Watts"  sound  in  the  faith  when  he  maintained,  that  there  is 
One  Supreme  God  dwelling  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ — 
which  human  nature  he  supposes  to  have  existed  the  first  of  all 


319 


(  features ! — and  wlien  lie  spoke  of  the  Divine  Logos  as  the 
wisdom  of  God,  and  the  Holy  spirit  as  the  Divine  power — or 
the  influence  or  effect  of  it  ?  Or  are  all  these  learned  theologians 
wrong  ? — and  are  we  tosuhscrihe  to  the  Roman  Catholic  creed 
of  Athanasias,  in  order  to  be  orthodox?  As  I  very  much  doubt 
whether  there  ever  has  been  any  commonly  received  doctrine 
on  this  fundamental,"  this  all-important''  point,  since  the  day 
when  fire  and  faggot  were  the  portion  of  every  man,  woman 
and  child,  who  did  not  yield  a  full  and  unqualified  assent,  to  every 
proposition  of  a  cruel  blood  thirsty  priest-hood,  I  shall  expect 
my  learned  opponent  w  ill  condescend  to  give  us  ample  instruc- 
tion in  the  case,  that  at  least,  we  may  not  <*  perish  for  lack  of 
knowledge ! ! !" 

Secondly — Do  you  consider  Anti-trinitarians  as  in  a  funda- 
mental error  ?  In  other  words,  do  you  believe  that  all  who  do 
not  believe  that  God  is  divided  into  three  parts,  "  three  divine 
persons,"  and  yet  not  three  persons,  but  one  Divine  person, 
are  fundamentally  wrong,  and  consequently  go  to  the  bottom- 
less pit,  because  they  cannot  believe  impossibilities?  Answer; 
I  confidently  believe  we  hold  no  such  blasphemous  opinions! 
We  should  be  very  sorry  to  think  that  such  men  as  the  excel- 
lent Isaac  Newton,  John  Locke,  Dr.  Lardner,  Dr.  Samuel 
Clarke,  Hoadly,  Law,  Blackburn,  Emlyn,  Lindsey,  Price, 
Jebb,  Wakefield,  Chandler,  Taylor,  Benson,  Cappe,  Kippis, 
Bishop  Clayton,  Abernethy,  Leland,  Lowman,  Palmer,  Tyrr- 
whit,  Disney,  Kenrick,  Simpson,  Toulmin,  Reynolds,  Estlin, 
Enfield,  Bretland,  Turner,  Elwall,  Biddle,  Firman,  Hopton, 
Haines,  George  Fox,  Robert  Barclay,  Francis  Howgill,  Wil- 
liam Penn,  and  many  others  who  might  be  named,  were  all  con- 
signed to  eternal  perdition  for  disbelieving  what,  in  truth,  no 
body  can  believe,  who  retains  the  use  of  his  rational  faculties, 
unless  it  be  possible  to  believe  contradictory  propositions ! 

Thirdly — Can  you  justify  your  silence  on  this  subject?" 
If  my  readers  wish  to  know  how  silent  we  have  been  on  this 
subject,  let  them  consult  George  Fox's  "  Great  Mystery  Un- 
folded," small  folio  16h9  ;  Robert  Barclay's  Truth  Vindicate 
ed,"  folio  ;  «  Howgill's  Works,"  folio ;  "  Isaac  Pennington's 
Works,"  quarto ;  William  Penn's  "  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken," 
and  his  Select  Works,"  folio,  all  published  more  than  a  cen- 
tury ago  I  These  works  will  convince  the  most  obstinate  ad- 
versary, that  the  people  w  ho  my  opponent  says,  «  never  dared 
to  avow  their  sentiments  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,"  have 
not  generally  maintained  a  suspicious  silence,'*  and  I  trust 
they  will  convince  many  of  a  different  character — many  who 
are  seeking  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  that  our  doctrines  on 
this  point  are  «  the  doctrines  of  the  Mw  Testainent,''  sustained 


320 


by  sound  reason,  and  with  a  strength  of  argument  which  no 
sophistry  can  withstand.  For  the  satisfaction  of  those  who 
may  not  have  the  opportunity  of  perusing  these  writings,  I  in- 
tend to  quote  some  parts  of  them  in  my  future  essays  on  this 
subject.  AMlCUti. 

Saturday  J  July  6,  1822. 

LETTER  XXX. 

ON  TBE  TRINITY. 

«  Great  is  the  mystery  of  Godliness.'^  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

I  CONGRATULATE  *»  Amicus"  and  the  public,  on  the  frank- 
aess  and  boldness  of  his  last  communication.  There  is  a  mean- 
ness in  tlie  ccincealmt  nt  of  our  religious  sentiments,  which 
every  Christian  should  disrain.  In  his  distinct  avowal  of  his 
heresy,  (so  far  as  candor  is  concerned,)  he  has  done  well.  I 
V  hope  he  will  proceed,  and  not  (miy  tell  us  what  your  sentiments 
are  not,  but  what  they  are.  As  he  seems  in  every  essay  to  be 
tremblingly  afraid  of  fire  and  faggot  from  a  ♦<  cruel,  mercenary 
and  blood-thirsty  priesthood,"  I  would  gently  remind  him  that 
the  days  of  blo')d  and  fire  are  now  out  of  date,  and  that  all  the 
"persecution"  he  or  your  society  may  expect  at  this  time,  is 
simply  to  be  thrust  through  a  few  times  with  **  the  sword  of  the 
spirif,  which  is  the  word  of  God," — a  weapon  which  however  it 
may  kill  heretics,  never  yet  injured  a  Christian. 

His  quotation  from  the  Apostle  Paul,  Acts  xxiv.  14,  would 
have  been  very  much  in  point,  had  he  not  mistaken  the  most 
important  part,  the  application.  This  Apostle,  for  preaching 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  Divinity  and  atonement  of 
Jesus  Christ,  was  arraigned  by  certain  men  who  denied  all  these 
things,  who  trusted  to  their  own  righteousness  for  salvation,  and 
pr(  ferred  an  unwritten  to  a  written  law  as  their  rule  in  religion. 
By  only  changing  sides,  therefore,  the  quotatiim  has  great  force. 

That  we  may  have  no  doubt  of  his  rejection  of  the  Trinity, 
he  speaks  of  the  absurd  and  unscriptural  doctrines  of  the 
Athanasian  creed."  He  calls  it  an  **  incomprehensible  doctrine," 
an  "  impossibillity,  a  <*  contradictory  j)roposition,"  a  *»  blasphe- 
mous opinion,"  and  says  that  Howgill,  Pennington.  Story,  Penn 
arid  many  others,  have  explicitly  declared  our  abhorrence  of  the 
doctrine  which  supposes  the  distinct  existence  of  three  persons  in 
one  God!  And  again,  speaking  of  Lardner,  Lindsey,  Clarke, 
Price,  Firman  and  others,  who  denied  the  real  Divinity  and 


421 


atonement  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  he  says:  "  wc  cannot  be^ 
lieve  they  are  consigned  to  perdition  for  not  believing  what  in 
truth  no  ma7i  can  believe  who  retains  the  use  of  his  rational 
faculties,  unless  it  be  possible  to  believe  contradictory  pro- 
positions,^^ 

A  very  fine  compliment  this  to  Trinitarians! — that  we  have 
not  the  "  use  of  our  rational  faculties,"  or  that  we  do  not  be- 
lieve" what  we  profess  to  believe ;  and  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
Trinity  in  Unity  is  a*<  contradictory  proposition  ! But  though 
«  Amicus"  is  thus  explicit  in  his  statements,  that  your  other 
standard  writers  have  fully  explained  your  sentiments  on  this 
subject,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  doubt,  until  <«  Amicus" 
proves  it  by  quotations.  I  do  still  therefore  prefer  the  charge 
of  a    suspicious  silence"  and  disingenuous  concealment. 

I  will  now  notice  some  of  his  objections.  The  Trinitarians," 
says  he,  "  are  so  split  in  pieces,  and  so  widely  divided  on  this  in- 
comprehensible doctrine,  that  it  is  hard  to  tell  what  is  the  com- 
monly received  doctrine."  This,  I  presume,  will  be  new  to 
most  people  ;  I  confess  it  is  so  to  me.  And  after  looking  over 
the  phrases  used  by  Waterland,  Howe,  Owen,  Pearson  and 
Bull,  as  stated  by  my  opponent,  it  will  puzzle  common  readers 
to  discover  much  diversity  of  sentiment.  They  all  held  to  the 
existence  three  co-equal,  co-eternal  and  co-essential  persons  in 
the  Godhead.  If  in  their  more  private  explanations,  some  pre- 
ferred the  word  "  Spirits,"  others  Agents,"  others  "  Hypos- 
tases," the  difference  is  of  no  moment.  All  these  were  as  far 
from  the  doctrines  of  Lardner,  Clarke,  Lindsey,  Price,  Wake- 
field, Kippis,  Firman,  Barclay,  and  others  of  your  ejjcellent" 
Arians  and  Socinians,  as  Christianity  is  from  heresy,  or  wor- 
shipping the  Creator  is  from  worshipping  the  creature. 

Jrians  will  admit,  that  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  three 
distinct  persons,  but  they  deny  the  equality  of  the  three.  The 
Sabellians  acknowledge  the  equality  and  eternity  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  but  they  deny  that  these  are  Three  Di- 
vine Persons,  and  hold  that  these  are  mere  names  or  attributes, 
or  offices  of  the  One  Person  of  the  Godhead.  Macedonians  deny 
that  the  Spirit  is  a  person  at  all,  or  any  thing  more  than  an  attri- 
bute. Thomas  BurneVs  system  of  "  one  self  existent  and  two  de- 
pendent beings,"  though  you  speak  of  it  as  orthodox,'*  is  not 
Trinitarianism,  but  an  abomination.  Now  to  all  these  notions,  tlie 

commonly  received"  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  diametrically 
opposed.  In  opposition  to  Sabellians,  we  hold  that  the  Fatlier, 
Son  and  Spirit  are  not  three  attributes,  but  Persons ; — in  op- 
position to  Arians,  that  they  are  three  Divine  Persons,  co-equal 
and  co-eternal;  and  in  opposition  to  Tritheists,  that  these  three 
are  co-essential  or  of  one  substance. 


322 


What  authority  Amicus"  had  for  placing  J\*twton  and  Locke 
on  the  Unitarian  list,  I  know  not.  This  much  is  certain,  if  they 
were  not  Trinitarians,  they  were  arrant  hypocrites,  for  they 
were  members  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  habitually  used  a 
Trinitarian  liturgy ! 

And  now,  as  you  have  explicitly  denied  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  it  is  proper  I  shoul(i  adduce  the  arguments  in  its  favour. 
But,  1.  Let  me  observe  it  is  an  infinitely  important  siibject. 
Upon  it  the  whole  Christian  system  hangs.  The  Divinity,  ihe 
Atonement,  the  Intercession^  with  the  whole  character  and  work 
of  Christ, — the  Divinity  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  in- 
spiration (jf  the  Scriptures,  and  all  our  hopes  of  salvation  live 
or  die  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  dt  cision  of  this 
question  will  determine  whether  you  or  we  are  idolaters. 

2.  We  acknowledge  it  is  a  mystery,  the  greatest  of  all 
mysteries.  And  when  you  have  proved  this  you  have  proved 
nothing,  until  you  have  proved  that  nothing  mysterious  is  to  be 
believed. 

3.  We  rely  for  proof  solely  on  revelation,  using  reason  no 
farther  than  to  determine  the  authenticity  and  tlie  grammatical 
and  logical  sense  of  that  revelation.  4.  We  shall  not  attempt  to 
prove  the  Unity  of  God,  but  take  that  for  granted,  as  no  Trini- 
tarian ever  intended  to  deny  it. 

4.  We  shall  not  attempt  to  prove  that  the  word  person," 
when  applied  to  the  Deity,  means  precisely  the  same  thing  as 
when  applied  to  men ;  but  simply,  that  no  other  word  will  do  so 
well  to  express  the  distinction  between  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost. 

These  things  being  premised,  I  proceed  to  show,  first,  that 
God  is  2L plural  Being;  secondly,  that  he  is  a  triune  Being ;  and 
thirdly,  that  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  properly  con- 
sidered and  styled  three  divine  «  Fersons.^^ 

First,  God  is  a  plural  Being.  If  I  understand  you,  you  are 
not  particularly  opposed  to  the  number  three,  more  than  to  two, 
or  any  other  number.  But  you  hold  to  ?7m^^  in  opposition  to  all 
plurality  in  the  Godhead.  If  therefore  you  are  compelled  to 
admit  a  plurality,  you  will  have  no  objection  to  admit  a  Trinity 
of  persons. 

Now,  1.  If  God  be  not  a  plural  Being,  how  do  you  account 
for  it,  that  he  has  a  plural  J^ame  ?  The  most  common  name  of 
the  Deity  in  the  Old  Testament  (in  Hebrew)  is  Jlleim,  or  Elo- 
him^  a  plural  noun !  How  do  you  account  for  this  ?  And  if  this 
plurality  is  not  also  consistent  with  unity,  how  do  you  account 
for  it,  that  this  plural  noun  is  often  nominative  to  a  singular 
verb  ?  Thus  "  God  created,"  {Dii  creavit,)  God  said,"  «God 
called,"  «  God  made,"  «  God  blessed,"  phrases  which  occur 


twenty  nine  times  in  the  very  first  chapter  of  the  Bible,  exhibit 
the  mysterious  anomaly  of  a  plural  nominative  to  a  singular 
verb  !  Does  it  not  denote  that  the  Jgent  is  plural  but  the  ac- 
tion one  ? 

Bui  you  will  perhaps  say  :  ^<  the  name  is  not  plural,  it  is  the 
idiom  of  the  languai^r."  How  th("n  do  you  account  for  it,  that 
this  same  nanie  is  soijietun*  s  nniuinHtivv  to  a  plural  verb,  and 
connected  with  plural  adjectivts  ?  Thus  Gt  n.  xx.  13,  "  It  came 
<o  pass  when  God  caused  me  to  wander  from  m>  lather's  }M)use, 
&c."  (^Deus  me  errare  Jactrent)  Here  the  verb  »<  caused"  is  in 
the  plural  number,  agrt^eing  with  its  plural  nominative.  Josh, 
xxis  .  19,  **  He  is  an  holy  God"  (ipse  Deus  sancti,)  Here  the 
adjective  *'  hol^  "  is  plural,  agreeing  with  its  substantive  God." 
How  can  you  account  for  this  ? 

2.  W'hy  has  he  plural  <z//es,  and  plural  attributes?  As  in  Job 
XXXV.  10,  "  Where  is  God  my  Maker  literally  «  Makers." 
Eccle.  xii.  1,  "  Remember  thy  Creator,*^  literally  "  Creators." 
(v.  Scott  or  any  other  commentator.)  Dan.  iv.  17,  <<This  mat- 
ter is  by  the  decree  of  the  Watchers,  and  the  demand  by  the 
word  of  the  Holy  Ones,  &c."  Any  one  who  will  consult  the  chap- 
ter will  see  that  these  are  titles  of  the  "  Most  High  God."  But 
how  can  He  be  called  the  »«  Watchers"  and  the  «  Holy  Ones," 
unless  He  be  a  plural  Being  ?  Isa.  liv.  5,  **  For  thy  Maker  is  thy 
husband.  Sac Here,  both  Maker  and  husband  are  in  the  plural 
number.  This  can  never  be  explained  on  your  principles  ;  but  is 
easily  solved  on  the  supposition,  that  though  plural  as  to  per- 
sons, Grod  is  but  one  in  essence. 

3.  If  God  be  not  a  plural  Being,  why  does  he  speak  of  him- 
self in  the  plural  number  ?  Gen.  i.  26,  And  God  said,  let  us 
make  man,  in  our  image,  and  after  our  likeness.  So  God  cre- 
ated man  in  his  own  image,  &c,"  Now  why  should  God  speak 
of  himself  in  the  plural  number,  unless  he  be  indeed  a  plural 
Being?— Again,  Gen.  iii.  5,  Satan  tells  our  first  parents  :  «Ye 
shall  be  as  Gods  (literally  as  God)  knowing  good  and  evil." 
After  the  fall,  the  Lord  says  :  Behold  the  man  has  become 
as  one  of  us,  knowing  good  and  evil."  (22) — Again,  Gen.  xi.  7, 

The  Lord  said :  let  us  go  down  and  there  confound  their 
language,  &c." — Again,  Isa.  vi.  8,  "  And  I  heard  the  voice  of 
the  Lord  saying:  whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  ?" 
Can  you  assign  as  good  a  reason  as  a  Trinitarian  for  his  speak- 
ing of  himself  in  the  plural  number? 

4.  If  there  be  not  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
why  is  the  name  Jehovah  given  to  more  than  one  ?  This  name, 
it  is  well  known,  implies  self  existence,  independence,  immu- 
tability and  eternity,  and  is  therefore  the  incommunicable  name 
of  the  only  God.  The  person  who  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the 


324 


plain  of*  Manu'c,  (Gen.  xviii.  1,)  to  whom  Abraham  prayed)  and 
whom  he  addressed  as  the  "Judge  of  all  the  earth,"  (25)  who 
is  called  Jehovah  fourteen  times  in  tliat  single  chapter,  is 
spoken  of  in  the  xixth  chapter  24th  verse,  as  a  distinct  person 
from  Jehovah  in  heaven.  As  he  stood  upon  the  earth  and  called 
down  fire  from  heaven  upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  it  is  said, 
"  Then  Jehovah  rained  upon  Sodom  and  upon  Gomorrah 
brimstone  and  fire  from  Jehovah  out  of  heaven."  From  this 
text  and  many  others  of  a  similar  kind,  it  is  evident  to  me, 
either  that  there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  or 
a  plurality  of  Gods,  The  latter  supposition  is  an  ahsurdittj, 
and  an  imjmsibility  ^  the  former  is  a  possibility,  but  is  a  great 

MYSTERY.  PAUL. 


Sevenih'day,  7th  mo.  13,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXL 

In  my  opponent's  last  address  to  us,  he  informs  us,  that  "  the 
days  of  blood  and  fire  are  now  out  of  date."  This  is  indeed  a 
happy  circumstance,  and  while  it  demands  our  gratitude  to  a 
gracious  Providence,  should  stimulate  us  to  use  every  proper 
means  to  prevent  those  who  may  be  so  disposed,  from  regaining 
the  power  to  regulate  our  faith  by  "  fire  and  faggot."  It  would 
be  no  difficult  task  to  prove  that  we  are  not  indebted  to  the 
clergy  for  our  present  liberty  !  They  have  lost  no  power  by 
their  ow  n  consent !  We  will  do  them  the  justice  to  acknowledge, 
that,  they  have  not  only  contended  with  spirit  for  every  inch  of 
ground  they  have  lost,  but  that  they  are  using  very  ingenious 
means  to  recover  that  ascendency,  which  once  made  them  for- 
midable. It  is  very  true,  they  cannot  now  w^^,  fire,  faggot,  or 
halter  I  but  the  weapons  of  detraction  and  abuse  are  still  left 
them.  They  can  still  cry  «  heresy" — can  still  pronounce  the 
most  sincere  and  conscientious  dissenter  from  their  creed  a 
<*  schismatic," — a  "  deist," — a  "  spurious  Christian," — a  *•  he- 
retic !"  And  it  must  also  be  placed  to  their  credit,  that  they 
have  by  no  means  been  idle  in  the  use  of  these  weapons ! 

My  opponent  lias  frequently  declared,  that  the  Bible  is  «  the 
Word  of  God."  On  this  point  we  differ.  The  society  I  advo- 
cate, maintain  the  Scripture  doctrine,  that  Christ  the  Saviour, 
is  the  Word  of  God,"  according  to  John  i.  1.  Rev.  xix.  13. 
This  divine  word  is  <«  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,"  a  weapon  that 
our  modern  Paul"  has  formally  rejected,  and  consequently, 
has  no  other  means  of  killing  heretics'*  than  they  have  of 
killing  him.    <«Thc  literal  and  logical  sense  of  the  Scrip- 


^»2o 

lures,'^  which  my  opponent  makes  his  rule,  and  which  the 
carnal  Christian  may  understand  as  well  as  any,  leaves  the 
orthodoxies  and  the  heterodox  on  even  ground !  thus,  « the 
shield  of  the  mighty  he  hath  vih^ly  cast  away,"  2  Sam.  i.  21. 

But  whenever  the  plain  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  ap- 
pear inimical  to  the  designs  or  interest  of  my  opponent,  it  is 
remarkable  how  hoidly  ht  deserts  his  own  standard — shuws 
himself  false  to  his  colours,  and  employs  all  his  theological 
learning  in  an  attack  on  doctrines  and  pracHces,  remarkably 
accordant  with  the  principles  and  example  of  the  primitive 
church,  as  1  have  already  shown  in  a  variety  of  cases !  But 
there  is  hardly  any  case  ihat  more  plainly  shows  ihe  depar- 
ture of  our  opponents  from  their  own  pietended  rule,  than  the 
gross  doctrine  of  the     Trinity,"  as  1  shall  endeavour  to  prove. 

In  the  first  place,  the  term  "Trinity,"  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  whole  Bible,  nor  is  tht-re  any  equivalent  expression  in  the 
language  of  inspiration  !  This  is  no  light  argument  against  the 
doctrine  itself;  because  if  Divine  Wisdom  had  intended  to 
teach  that  the  Deity  was  composed  of  «*  three  distinct  and  se- 
parate persons"— that  he  <*  was  a  plural  Being" — was  «  a  So- 
ciety in  himself,"  he  would  have  inspired  the  Scripture  writers 
with  language  clearly  to  convey  such  ideas,  which  they  cer- 
tainly never  have  done  !  Even  the  spurious  text  quoted  by  my 
opponent,  and  placed  at  the  head  of  his  communication. 
Letter  xxviii.  p.  302,  does  not  use  the  gross  terms  <*  Three 
persons,"  nor  does  it  tell  us  that  the  **  three  that  bear  re- 
cord in  heaven,"  are  *«  distinct  and  separate;"  on  the  con- 
trary, it  tells  us  these  three  are  one."  Now,  if  God  be  one, 
he  cannot  be  three  persons,"  The  term  person,  implies  iden- 
tity of  being,  individuality,  separate  existence  !  the  terms 
« three  distinct  and  separate  Divine  persons,"  imply  three  dis- 
tinct Gods !  Trinitarians  tell  us  they  do  not  understand  them 
so.  That  may  be — yet,  that  this  is  the  clear  meaning  of  the 
terms,  is  unquestionably  true  !  If  they  do  not  wish  others  to  re- 
ceive this  idea,  let  them  choose  better  terms  ;  and  if  it  would 
not  be  too  presumptuous,  1  would  advise  them  to  resort  to  the 
language  of  inspiration  for  suitable  words  by  which  to  explain 
themselves.  There  can  be  no  better  vocabulary  than  the 
supreme  and  only  standard  of  faith  and  practice  ! ! !" 

The  term  Trinity,"  was  not  invented,  until  the  church  had 
made  large  advances  into  the  apostacy  from  •*  the  faith  once  de- 
livered to  the  saints  ;"  not  until  Simony  began  to  be  openly  ad- 
vocated by  the  clergy  !  not  until  the  bishops  of  the  chureli  had 
(as  Mosheim  informs  us)  assumed  a  rank  and  character  similar 
to  those  of  the  high  priests  among  the  Jews,  whilst  the  Presby- 
ters represented  the  pnests,  and  the  deacons  the  Levites  ,*"  thus 


326 


opening  a  new  source  both  of  honour  and  profit  to  the  sacred 
order."  Eccl.  Hist.  Cent.  II.  Part  2.  ch.  ii.  sec.  4. 

The  learned  Dr.  Maelaine,  in  his  account  of  Ecclesiastical 
writers  in  the  second  century,  says  .  rhe«rphil«js  of  Anti-ich 
was  the  first  who  made  use  of  the  word  Trinity^  to  express  the 
distinction  of  what  divines  call  persons  m  ilie  GodUead.  The 
Christian  world,"  says  he,  are  very  little  obliged  to  him  for 
his  invention.  The  use  of  this,  and  other  unscriptural  terms,  to 
which  men  attach  either  no  ideas,  or  talse  ones,  has  wounded 
charity  and  peace,  without  promoting  truth  and  knowledge.  It 
has  produced  heresies  of  the  very  worst  kind !"  >;ow,  if  Dr. 
Maelaine  be  correct,  and  I  think  his  statement  will  not  be  dis- 
puted— then,  as  ever}  production  is  of  the  nature  of  its  parent, 
and  as  heresies  of  the  very  worst  kind  were  produced  by  the  terra 
<«  Trinity,"  it  must,  \  think,  be  very  heretical  to  adopt  it  at  all  as 
a  representative  of  any  part  of  our  faith.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
unscriptural,  and  they  that  use  it,  so  far  depart  from  what  my 
opponent  calls  the  supreme  and  onbj  standard  of  faith  and 
practice  ! !  !" 

Some  may  suppose  it  is  unimportant  what  terms  we  use  to 
convey  our  meaning  on  religious  subjects.  This,  how^ever,  is  a 
pernicious  error !  They  who  think  so,  know  very  little  of  hu- 
man nature — are  very  ignorant  of  the  power  of  names !  We 
have  not  only  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Maelaine,  "  that  the  term 
<  Trinity^  produced  heresies  of  the  very  worst  kind  the  uni- 
form acknowledgement  of  Ecclesiastical  writers,  and  our  own 
experience,  show  that  it  has  never  served  a  better  purpose,  than 
to  produce  division  and  contention !  In  the  early  ages  of  the 
church,  it  was  a  prolific  source  of  wars,  bloodshed,  and  the 
most  shocking  cruelties.  Since  that  time,  it  has  ever  perplex- 
ed and  divided  the  most  learned  and  pious  professors  of  the 
Gospel — and  at  the  present  day  is  held  up  as  a  standard  of  or- 
thodoxy, round  which,  not  charity  and  peace,  but  the  very  worst 
passions  of  depraved  human  nature  seern  delighted  to  rally  ! 
Ami  yet,  as  if  to  manifest  the  inconsistency  of  the  professors 
of  Christianity,  this  same  fatal  term,  wliich  was  never  dictat- 
ed by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  tenaciously  adhered  to  by  the  very 
men  who  tell  us,  that  *<the  Bible  is  the  supreme  and  only  stand- 
ard of  faith  and  practice ! ! !" 

Now,  let  those  who  profess  to  be  ruled  by  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, lay  aside  all  unscriptural  language ;  let  them  reject  the 
unintelligible,  incongruous  terms  of  Trinity,''  «  Plural  Be- 
ing," "  Glorious  Society  in  the  Godhead,"  with  all  others  not 
found  in  the  inspired  volume,  and  we  shall  soon  see  the  happy 
effects  of  such  a  measure.  Thousands,  who  revolt  with  disgust 
from  these  terms,  are  perfectly  willing  to  avow  the  doctrines 


327 


relative  to  the  Divine  nature,  as  expressed  in  the  Bible.  Them 
is  no  genuine  text  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  which  the  society 
I  advocate,  do  not  freely  and  unreservedly  subscribe  !  It  is  the 
presumptuous  dogmatism  of  poor,  weak,  jarring  and  contentious 
men,  that  we  oppose !  It  is  the  interpretation,  the  gloss,  the 
sense,  or  rather  th«-  nonsense,  that  fallible  expounders  of  the 
sacred  text  would  impose  on  us,  that  we  reject !  ^ow,  can  any 
Chriscian  desire  more  than  we  grant  ?  Can  any  rational  man 
condemn  us  f<»r  what  we  refuse  ?  Must  we  not  only  subscribe 
to  Scripture  doctrines,  but  to  the  inventions  and  absurdities  of 
a  grossly  carnal  church,  against  which  Wickliffe,  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, Zuinglius,  Melancthon,  and  others  protested  ?  Must  we 
be  deemed  heretics  for  refusing  to  submit  to  the  dogmas  and 
decisions  of  a  church  which  pronounced  the  reformation  a  heresy, 
and  anathematized  those  faithful  sons  of  the  morning,  who,  at 
the  hazard  of  every  worldly  blessing,  separated  themselves 
from  its  anti-christian  communion  ! ! ! 

All  the  attributes  of  the  Deity,  his  omniscience,  his  omni- 
presence, his  omnipotence,  his  eternity,  his  justice,  goodness, 
mercy,  &c.  the  Divinity  and  office  of  Christ,  as  the  Saviour, 
the  Redeemer,  the  Mediator  and  Intercessor,  the  only  means  of 
salvation  to  man,  we  reverently  acknowledge.  We  fully  be- 
lieve in  the  Divine  inspiration  of  the  sacred  penmen,  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  necessity  of  the  new 
birth,  and  that  without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord 
yet  all  this  will  not  make  us  orthodox  !  /  /  We  must  believe  what 
I  conceive  no  man  can  rationally  believe,  that  Jehovah  is  a  com- 
pound Being,  made  up  of  three  distinct  and  separate  per- 
sons." 

And  what  is  this  orthodoxy,  of  which  we  hear  Trinitarians 
so  frequently  boastin?:;? — It  is  the  judgment  of  fallible  men  ! !! 
men,  of  whom  we  may  truly  say,  in  the  language  of  the  Patri- 
arch, "  Instruments  of  cruelty  were  in  their  habitation."  N.)w, 
is  my  opponent  prepared  to  adopt  the  poprsh  doctrine  of  the 
infallibility  of  councils? — if  not,  why  should  we  submit  to  the 
councils  of  Alexandria  and  Nice  any  more  than  toothers  ?  Was 
there  so  much  Christian  meekness,  so  much  of  that  charity 
which  suffereth  long  and  is  kind,"  exhibited  b  v  them,  as  to  en- 
title them  to  superior  respect  ?  Let  authentic  history  answei-l 
Orthodoxy  and  heresy,  as  now  understood  on  this  suhject,  are  both 
of  them  the  offspring  of  secular  power  and  clerical  intoler- 
ance ; — these  terms,  though  once  terrible,  can  msvv  have  but 
little  weight  with  dispassionate  and  disinterested  men  ;  they 
are  like  the  superanuated  lion,  who  has  lost  both  claws  and 
teeth  ! 

We  have  noticed  the  origin  of  the  term  «  Trinity,"  and  have 


328 


heard  Dr.  Maclairie's  excellent  remarks  upon  it :  let  us  now 
take  a  view  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  doctrine  of  "  three 
persons  in  one  God." 

MosHEiM,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  I.  Part.  2.  chap. 
V.  after  giving  an  account  of  the  divisidns  which  troubled  the 
church  in  the  three  first  centuries,  says  :  «  Soon  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fourth  century,  a  new  contention  arose  in 
Egypt  [a  land  always  remarkable  for  spiritual  darkness]  upon 
a  subject  of  much  higher  importance,  and  with  consequences  of 
a  much  more  pernicious  nature :  The  subject  of  thisfatnl  contrO' 
versiff  which  kindled  such  deplorable  divisions  throughout  the 
Christian  world,  was  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead  ! — a  doctrine,  which,  in  the  three  preceding  centu- 
ries, had  happily  escaped  the  vain  curiosity  of  human  researches, 
and  had  been  left  undefined  and  undetermined  by  any  particu- 
lar set  of  ideas.  Nothing  had  hitherto  been  dictated  to  the 
faith  of  Christians  in  this  matter,  nor  were  there  any  modes  of 
expression  prescribed,  as  requisite  to  be  used  in  speaking  of 
this  mystery !" 

Here  we  see  the  beginning  of  this  new  doctrine — this  fatal 
controversy  ! — Its  birth  was  marked  by  "  deplorable  divisions,'* 
its  infancy  by  the  most  <*  pernicious  consequences,"  which  have 
«  grown  with  its  growth,  and  strengthened  with  its  strength," 
afiiirding  an  evidence  of  the  most  impressive  kind,  that  it  ne- 
ver could  have  originated  with  the  source  of  Divine  light  and 
truth  !  If  we  may  judge  from  its  fruits,  it  must  have  been  the 
contrivance  of  Anti-christ  himself,  in  a  fit  of  the  deadliest  en- 
mity to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  church  ! 

On  a  review  of  these  important  facts,  it  may  be  profitable 
for  Christians  in  general  to  inquire,  "  Why  this  doctrine  had  so 
happily  escajjed  the  vain  curiosity  of  human  researches  for  the 
first  three  centuries  Can  we  suppose  that  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  Christians,  were  less  concerned  to  obtain  and  propa- 
gate just  ideas  of  the  one  true  God,  than  Arius  and  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria?  Or  must  we  conclude  that  they  held  a  sus- 
picious silence  on  this  subject?"  Or  are  we  to  believe,  that  the 
schools  and  theological  seminaries  of  Egypt,  had  poured  such  a 
flood  of  Gospel  light  into  the  minds  of  these  learned  janglers, 
in  the  fourth  century,  that  they  understood  the  nature  and  man- 
ner of  existence  of  Jehovah,  better  than  the  unlearned  fish- 
ermen and  humble  disciples  of  Judea  and  Gallilee  ?  However 
"  Paul"  may  answer  these  questions,  1  cannot  doubt  that  ex- 
perimental Christians  of  all  denominations  will  say,  No!  TAeo- 
logical  seminaries  and  human  learnings  so  far  as  they  have  been 
employed  in  diving  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Divinity,  have  al- 
ways    darkened  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge  I  /" — 


329 


Even  Dr.  Miller,  who  lias  written  a  volume  of  more  than  three 
hundred  pages,  in  defence  of  Trinitarianism,  candidly  con- 
fesses  that  he  does  not  understand  the  subject !  that  he  does 
not  comprehend  cither  what  he  means  when  he  says,  "  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,"  or  what  is  to  be  understood 
by  the  term     Unity."  Letter  iii.  page  82,  83,  8*.    Now,  can 
there  be  a  greater  folly,  than  to  wrangle  and  write  volumes  on 
such  a  subject,  with  no  more  light  than  Dr.  Miller  has  to  help 
him  ? — Or  can  there  be  a  stronger  evidence  of  that  great  truth 
expressed  by  our  Lord  himself :  Matt.  xi.  27,     No  man  know- 
eth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Fa- 
ther save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal 
him."    We  may  read  all  the  books  on  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity,  with  which  theological  doctors  and  professors  have 
burdened  the  world  since  the  days  of  Arius  and  the  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  and  we  shall  retire  from  the  subject  darker  and 
more  confused  than  when  we  first  approached  it,  unless  it  please 
Him,  who  declared  himself  to  be  the  "  liiGiiT  of  the  world," 
the  great  Gospel  Luminary,  to  shed  a  beam  of  light  from  his 
own  immediate  presence,  upon  our  understandings.  Without 
this,  we  can  really  know  nothing  of  the  Divine  nature.  With 
this*  we  shall  want  to  know  nothing  of  it,  but  what  we  may 
learn  through  this  Divine  medium  !  And  this  brings  us  to  the 
true  reason,  <*  why  this  subject  so  happily  escaped  the  vain 
curiosity  of  human  researches  for  the  three  first  centuries." 
He  that  has  the  light  of  the  sun,  has  no  desire  to  sit  by  a  can- 
I    die  !  To  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  God  was  known 
I    by  the  revelation  of  his  Spirit.    They  could  say,     God,  who 
commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  face  [the  manifestation]  of  Jesus  Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6. 
Consequently,  they  wanted  no  theological  jargon  to  satisfy  their 
minds  on  this  important  subject.    The  knowledge  thus  obtain- 
ed, is  inseparably  connected  with  salvation.    "This  is  life 
eternal,  to  know  Thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ 
whom  thou  hast  sent."  John  xvii.    Our  knowledge  of  the  God- 
head obtained  in  any  other  way,  is  but  learned  ignorance  ! 

I  will  close  this  communication  with  an  extract  from  a  work, 
entitled  <«  Innocency  with  her  open  face,"  written  by  "  that 
good  man  William  Penn,"  expressly  to  vindicate  the  doctrine 
of  •<  the  Divinity  of  Christ.  ' — By  virtue  of  the  sound  know- 
ledge and  experience  received  from  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Unc- 
tion and  Divine  grace,  inspired  from  on  high,  I  sincerely  own 
and  unfeignedly  believe  in  one  holy,  just,  merciful,  almighty, 
and  eternal  God,  who  is  the  Father  all  tilings — who  appeared 
to  the  holy  Patriarchs  and  Prophets  of  old,  <  at  sundry  times 
42 


sao 


and  in  divers  manners.'  And  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  ever- 
lasting Wisdom,  Divine  Power,  true  Light,  only  Saviour  and 
Preserver  of  all ;  the  same  One,  holy,  just,  merciful,  almighty 
and  eternal  God,  who  in  the  fulness  of  time,  took,  and  was 
manifested  in  the  flesh ;  at  which  time  he  preached  the  ever- 
lasting Gospel  of  repentance,  and  promise  of  remission  of  sins 
and  eternal  life,  to  all  that  heard  and  obeyed  ;  who  said  :  *  He 
that  is  with  you  (in  the  flesh)  shall  be  in  you  (by  the  spirit,) — 
and  though  he  left  them  (as  to  the  flesh,)  yet  not  comfortless,  for 
he  would  come  to  them  again  (in  the  Spirit :) — for  a  little  while, 
and  they  should  not  see  him  (as  to  the  flesh ;)  again,  a  little 
while,  and  they  should  see  him  (in  the  Spirit ;)  for  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ  is  that  Spirit,  a  manifestation  whereof  is  given  to 
every  man  to  profit  withal.'  In  which  Holy  Spirit,  I  believe, 
as  the  same  Almighty  and  Eternal  God,  who,  as  in  those  times 
he  ended  all  shadows,  and  became  the  infallible  guide  to  them 
that  walked  in  the  Spirit,  by  which  they  were  adopted  heirs 
and  co-heirs  of  glory ;  so  am  I  a  living  witness,  that  the  same 
holy,  just,  merciful,  almighty  and  eternal  God,  is  now,  as  then, 
(after  a  tedious  night  of  idolatry,  superstition  and  human  in- 
ventions, that  hath  overspread  the  world)  gloriously  manifest- 
ed to  discover,  and  save  from  all  iniquity,  and  to  conduct  unto 
the  Holy  Land  of  puve  and  endless  peace ;  in  a  word,  to  taber- 
nacle in  men.  And  I  also  firmly  believe,  that  without  repent- 
ing and  forsaking  of  past  sins,  and  walking  in  obedience  to  this 
heavenly  voice,  which  would  guide  into  all  truth,  and  establish 
there,  remission  [of  sin]  and  eternal  life,  can  never  be  obtained; 
hut  they  that  fear  his  name,  and  keep  his  commandments,  and 
they  only,  shall  have  a  right  unto  the  tree  of  life.  1  Cor.  viii. 
5,  6  ;  Heb.  i.  1 ;  John  i.  14 ;  1 1  im.  iii.  16 ;  Matt.  iv.  17 ;  Luke 
xxiv.  47  ;  John  xvii.  17, 18.  xvi.  16  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  17  ;  1  Cor.  i.  7  ; 
Rom.  viii.  1*,  17 ;  Rev.  xxi.  3 ;  Prov.  xxviii.  13 ;  Luke  xiv. 
33  ;  Rev.  xxi.  27.  xxii.  14." 

In  the  foregoing  extract,  Penn  has,  in  strong,  plain  Scrip- 
ture language,  given  his  vi^  ws  on  the  subject  now  in  'liseussion. 
I  invite  my  reader  to  take  his  Bible,  and  refer  to  the  texts  he 
has  quoted.  To  me  Penn  appears  to  be  orthodox,  in  the  best 
sense  of  the  word.    It  was  written  in  the  year  1668. 

AMICUS. 

P.  S.  The  argument  of  my  opponent,  drawn  from  one  of  the 
numerous  anomalies  of  the  Hebrew  language,  is,  in  my  opinion^ 
helow  eriticisin. 


331 


LETTER  XXXL 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

ffhosoever  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not 
God  ;  he  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  both  tJie  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son,^'  %  John  J>. 

Paganism,  atheism,  popery  and  deism,  have  each  had  their 
day  ;  each  has  fought  its  battle  with  the  Gospel,  and  has  left 
the  field.  The  great  enemy  of  truth  at  the  present  day,  is 
*^  Unitarianism'' — the  same  old  enemy,  under  a  new  shape. 
The  Bible  has  gained  such  ascendency  in  the  world,  and  Chris- 
tianity has  become  so  popular,  that  no  religionist  dare  show  his 
head  without  acknowledging  the  inspiration  of  the  one,  and  the 
divinity  of  the  other.  Unitarianism  accordingly  assumes  the 
name  of  Christianity,  but  inculcates  none  of  her  peculiar  doc- 
trines ;  professes  to  receive  the  Bible  as  a  revelation,  but  tears 
it  to  pieces  by  biblical  criticism,  conjectural  emendations,  denial 
of  plenary  inspiration,  and  subjecting  all  its  incomprehensible 
mysteries  to  be  hewed  and  squared,  and  levelled  by  self  con- 
ceited reason.  Milner,  the  Ecclesiastical  historian,  has  well 
described  it  as  <^  an  admission  of  Christianity  generally,  and 
then  denying  all  those  things  in  which  Christianity  consists/'  In 
general,  they  have  no  creed — but  to  be  opposed  to  creeds  and 
to  hate  the  "  doctrines  of  grace."  Their  system  has  been  cor- 
rectly stated  in  the  form  of  negatives,  by  the  editor  of  the 
Evan,  and  Lit.  Magazine  of  Virginia.  "1.  They  do  not  believe 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  2.  They  do  not  believe  the  divini- 
ty of  Christ,"  (as  a  separate  person  from  the  Father.)  "  3.  They 
do  not  believe  the  divinity  and  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
4.  They  do  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  atonement.  5.  They  do 
not  believe  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  6.  They  do  not  believe 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith.  7.  They  do  not  believe 
the  doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment.  8.  They  do  not  believe 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  writers  of  Scripture."  He  might 
have  added  ;  9.  They  do  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  evil  spi- 
rits. 10.  They  reject  all  mysteries.  11.  They  make  charity 
and  indifference  to  truth  the  same  thing.  12.  They  make  little 
or  nothing  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  13.  Like  the  In- 
dians, they  seldom  show  themselves  in  the  open  field.  The 
cardinal  principle  of  this  system,  the  rejection  of  the  Trinity, 

Amicus"  in  your  name  has  already  avowed.  You  will  hence- 
forth, therefore,  stand  before  the  Christian  public  with  the 


name  of  «  t'liitarianism'*  on  your  front.    I  will  now  notice 
some  of  your  objections. 

Obj.  1.  "  The  term  <  Trinity'  is  not  in  the  Bible."  This 
puerile  objection  has  been  already  answered.  We  are  not  dis- 
puting about  the  term,  but  about  the  doctrine.  The  term  is  a 
very  simple  and  a  very  happy  one  to  express  the  Three-one 
God.  Refute  the  doctrine,  and  we  will  renounce  the  term. 

Obj.  2.  «*  We  arc  ready  to  subsci'ibe  every  genuine  text  of 
Scripture — can  any  Christian  d^'sire  more  ?"  \es  ;  David  Hume 
would  do  the  same,  and  yet  reject  the  whole.  Every  Socinian 
professes  the  same,  and  yet  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  is  any 
thing  more  than  man.  He  will  reject  as  <*  spurious"  every 
text  which  does  not  tally  with  liis  system,  and  cannot  be  tor- 
tured into  conformity  to  his  doctrine.  Is  lie  therefore  ortho- 
dox ?  An  Universalist  will  subscribe  the  text,  "  the  wicked  shall 
go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,"  and  yet  rise  up  immedi- 
ately and  preach  a  limited  or  temporary  punishment.  Tliere  is 
not  a  Pelagian,  Swedenborgian,  or  Shaking  Quaker  in  the  land, 
that  will  refuse  to  subscribe  every  genuine  text," — only  let 
his  own  imagination  decide  what  texts  are  genuine,  and  what 
are  not.  Your  society  will  «  subscribe"  to  the  texts  about  bap- 
tism, the  Lord's  supper,  the  resurrection,  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
and  yet  deny  tlie  plain  and  obvious  doctrine  of  these  texts.  You 
w'lW  adopt  the  words,  but  not  the  obvious  sense  Scripture. 
!Now,  it  is  of  little  cons(  qu«*nce,  comparatively,  what  words 
you  use  in  preaching  or  in  writing;  the  doctrine,  the  meaning 
is  that  at  which  your  hearers  and  readers  look.  And  it  is  this 
and  not  your  terms  (for  you  use,  or  rather  abuse,  many  Bible 
terms)  that  we  condemn.  We  do  therefore  desire  something 
more  than  that  you  should  quote  the  texts  of  Scripture — Ave  de- 
sire you  to  admit  and  preach  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of 
those  texts.  You  might  as  well  subscribe  to  the  Koran  as  the 
Scriptures,  if  you  have  no  regard  to  the  sense  o{  either.  The 
words  of  Scripture,  from  an  essential  defect  of  language,  are 
capable  of  being  wrested"  to  a  very  erroneous  and  injurious 
sense ;  now,  the  only  way  to  know  whether  you  use  the  text  in 
a  natural  or  unnatural  sense,  is  to  require  of  you  the  adoption  of 
other  nneq^iivocal  and  explanatory  terms, 

Obj.  3.  ♦*  If  God  be  one,  lie  cannot  be  three  persons."  An- 
swer. If  God  be  one,  he  cannot  be  two  persons, — and  now 
where  is  your  Divinity  of  Christ?"  It  is  no  more  "  impas- 
sible," «  contradictory"  or  *»  inco:nj>rehen«<:ible,"  that  there 
should  be  three  in  one,  than  that  there  should  be  two  in  one; 
and  you  must  hold  to  two  in  one  or  renounce  the  Divinity  of 
Christ,  which  yon  say  you  "  reverently  acknowledge."  Please 


S33 


reconcile  the  Divinity  of  Christ  as  a  distinct  person  from  the 
Father,  with  the  doctrine  of  but  one  person  in  the  Godhead  ? 

Obj.  4.  **  Three  distinct  and  separate  persons  are  three 
Gods."  Answer.  Upon  the  same  principle,  two  distinct  and 
separate  persons  are  two  Gods.  And  W  yon  will  show  how  Jesus 
Cinist  and  the  Father,  two  separate  persons,  can  be  two  and 
yet  one,  I  will  show  vouhow  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
can  he  three  and  yet  one. 

Obj.  5.  «  The  term  <  Trinity'  was  not  invented  till  the  church 
had  made  great  advances  in  the  apostacy.''  Suppose  this  as- 
sertion was  true,  (which  certainly  is  not,)  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
consequence  ;  we  arc  not  disputing  about  a  /erm,  but  a  doctrine^ 
which  is  as  old  as  revelation.  The  term,  however,  was  in- 
vented at  a  season,  when  modes  of  self-defence  are  usually  in- 
vented, when  the  enemy  threatened  an  attack.  When  Arius, 
Noetus,  Sabellius  and  others,  under  pretence  of  preaching 
Christianity,  began  to  undermine  Christianity,  it  was  neces- 
sary for  Christians  to  start  a  countermine.  This  and  other 
terms  on  the  subject  would  have  never  been  invented  but  in 
self-defence.  They  were  invented  by  men  who  feared  God  and 
reverenced  the  Bible  much  more  than  their  adversaries,  and  were 
found  the  only  contrivances,  by  which  they  could  defeat  and 
baffle  their  subtle  foes.  We  may  say  of  creeds  what  the  Apostle 
says  of  lawSf  they  were  «  not  made  for  the  righteous,  but  for 
the  lawless  and  disobedient."  The  wicked,  if  left  to  themselves, 
would  never  make  laws  to  hamper  and  punish  themselves ; 
neither  would  heretics,  who  wish  to  believe  any  thing  and 
every  thing,  ever  invent  creeds  to  tie  them  up  to  truth  Laws 
never  injure  honest  men,  neither  do  creeds  trouble  a  Christian. 
The  public  will  soon  see,  that  the  way  and  the  only  way  to  dis- 
cover your  real  doctrine,  is  to  compel  you  to  express  yourselves 
in  the  unequivocal  terms  so  long  used  in  the  church  of  Christ. 

Obj.  6.  "  Dr.  c^^/acZai/ie  condemns  the  use  of  the  term."  Dr. 
Maclaine  shows  through  that  wiiole  work,  that  he  was  not  well 
affected  towards  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  this  will  readily 
account  for  his  objection  to  the  term — <*  But  Jlfos/iem  condemns 
the  controversy,  and  says  it  arose  from  vainturiosittj,  &c."  An- 
swer. It  did  arise  from  vain  curiosity,"  not  of  Christians,  how- 
ever, but  o^Arins  and  others.  For  had  not  heretics  begun  to  spe- 
culate on  this  mysterious  subject,  and  to  publish  their  "vain 
curiosity"  to  the  world,  the  ortliodox  would  have  invented  no 
terms  to  prevent  similar  curiosity  in  future. 

Real  Christians  never  feel  justified  in  indulging  any  curiosity 
on  the  subject ;  but  wish  to  rest  in  the  plain  doctrine  of  the 
Bible.  And  here  they  would  have  rested  but  for  tlie  vain 
curiosity"  #f  heretics.  On  the  subject  of  a  Trinity,  Christian?? 


334 


have  never  had  but  one  creed,  the  Nieene  or  Athanasian  creed. 
The  words  chosen  one  thousand  five  hundred  years  ago  by 
above  three  hundred  representatives  from  Europe,  Asia  and 
Africa,  to  express  the  views  of  the  universal  church  on  this 
momentous  subject,  have  served  to  express  (not  originate)  the 
sentiments  of  the  church  ever  since.  On  the  other  hand  **  it  is 
worthy  of  notice,'*  (says  «*  Adams'  Rel.  World  Displayed,"  Art. 
Arianism)  that  the  friends  of  Ananism  drew  up  seventeen 
different  Confessions  of  Faith  within  forty  years  after  they  had 
rejected  ri»e  Nieene  doctrine,  and  after  ail  would  abide  by  none 
of  them."  From  the  day  they  jegan  to  exercise  their  ♦*  vain 
curiosity,"  they  had  no  rest,  they  could  not  fix  a  creed,  until 
at  length  they  became  sick  of  creeds^  and  left  their  people  to 
float  about  between  the  Scylla  of  Arianism  and  the  Charybdis 
of  Socinianism.  Remember,  the  orthodox  exercise  no  CMrios% 
on  this  subject ;  all  the  curiosity  is  on  the  side  of  those  who 
will  set  reason  to  speculate  on  matters  of  pure  revelation. 

Obj.  7.  It  is  an  incomprehensible  doctrine,  and  to  talk  or 
write  on  the  subject  is  to  darken  counsel  by  words  without 
knowledge."  Does  «  Amicus,"  never  talk  of  things  he  does 
not  fully  comprehend  ?  Perhaps  he  has  read  Materia  Medica, 
And  did  he  find  no  mysteries  in  medicine  ?  Few  words  are  more 
commonly  used  than  fever,^^  and  does  Amicus"  know  any 
thing  more  about  it  than  a  few  of  its  properties,  causes  and 
effects  ?  Does  he  perfectly  comprehend  the  nature  of  the  thing 
itself?  Can  he  explain  all  the  wonders  of  pharmacy  and  che- 
mistry ?  If  he  does  not  know  every  thing  about  them,  according 
to  his  own  doctrine  he  should  not  say  any  thing  about  them, 
lest  he  darken  counsel !  The  cook  in  the  kitchen  cannot  tell 
why  fire  makes  the  kettle  boil,  or  how  salt  keeps  the  meat  from 
corruption,  but  she  does  not  doubt  the  fact,  nor  cease  to  talk 
about  it  day  by  day.  A  child  cannot  explain  why  a  stone  falls 
downward  rather  than  upward,  but  he  can  admit  the/acf  as  well 
as  if  he  knew  the  whole  mystery  of  gravitation.  So  we  can 
understand  and  talk  about  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  three  in 
one  in  the  Godhead,  because  it  is  revealed,  without  presuming 
or  wishing  to  unaerstand  the  mode  of  existence. 

Obj.  8.  "  The  argument  drawn  from  one  of  the  numerous 
anomalies  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  below  criticism."  This 
is  a  very  convenient  way  of  getting  over  an  argument  which 
you  cannot  refute.  Thus  some  people  get  over  the  account  of 
the  Fall,  it  is  all  a  figure,  an  allegory."  And  others,  over  the 
doctrine  of  everlasting  punishment,  "  it  is  all  a  figure  an  hyper- 
bole, &e."  Thus  Dr.  Clarke,  when  he  cannot  manage  certain 
texts  which  assert  the  divinity  of  Christ,  sets  them  aside  at 
once,  with  «  Oh  it  is  only  a  manner  of  speaking !"  So  when  I 


335 


show  an  Unitarian  that  the  name  of  God  is  plural^  his  titles 
plural,  his  attributes  plural,  that  he  speaks  of  liimself  in  the 
plural  number,  and  inspired  writers  speak  of  Him  as  a  plural 
Being,  "Oh  it  is  all  an  anomaly,  an  irregularity  of  speech!'' 
Unless  **•  Amicus"  can  show  other  passages  paralled  to  these— 
uni?ss  he  can  prove  that  the  rule  of  all  other  languages — that  a 
ver*>  must  agree  in  number  with  its  nominative,  and  an  «jdj;-c  ive 
with  lis  substantive,  does  vsor  hold  good  in  the  Hebrew,  ne  roust 
acknowledge  that  the  Bible  +t  acbes  Go4  is  a  plural  Being,  That 
the  ancient  Jews  unders;  M»d  the  passages  I  have  quoted,  as 
alluding  to  the  Trinity,  is  abundantly  evident  (roro  their  ancient 
commentaries,  though  they  now  deny  the  doctrine  from  oppo- 
sition to ''the  Gospel.  As  »*  Amicus"  is  not  satisfied  with  the 
four  arguments  brought  in  my  last  to  prove  this  point,  I  add, 

5.  That  God  is  a  plural  Being  is  evident  from  Prov.  ix.  10, 
«The  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  ;  the  know- 
ledge of  the  Holy  O^es  is  understanding."  Here  it  is  evident 
to  all  acquainted  with  the  reduplicative  style  of  Scripture,  that 
*f  the  Lord"  and  the  "  Holy  Ones"  refer  to  the  same  Being. 
The  inference  is  irresistible,— in  God  is  a  plurality  in  unity. 
The  same  thing  is  taught,  Hos.  xi.  13,  «  Judah  yet  ruleth  with 
God,  and  is  faithful  with  the  SaintSy'^  or  as  it  ought  to  have  been 
rendered,  the  "Holy  Ones.'' 

6.  In  Isa.  xlviii.  16,  a  person  who  calls  himself  in  the  12th 
and  13th  verses,  the  <•  First  and  the  Last,"  who  says,  his  hands 
"  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,"  and  who  of  course  is  God, 
says  : "  and  now  the  Lokd  God  and  his  Spibit  hath  sent  me." 
Here  is  either  more  than  one  God,  or  more  than  one  person  in 
the  Godhead  :  take  your  choice.  But  as  you  have  such  objection 
to  Hebrew  anomalies,  I  will  bring  you  some  from  another  lan- 
guage. As  you  dislike  the  Old  Testament  so  much,  1  will  see 
if  you  like  the  New  any  better. 

7.  What  think  you  of  John  i.  1,  «  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God  and  the  Word  was  God  •  the 
same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God."  Now  here  is  certainly 
a  plurality  of  somtthing,  and  if  the  name  <•  God"  denote  siperson, 
here  is  a  plurciiHy  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  For  it  is  said : 

God  was  with  GodJ'^  Now  one  cannot  be  with  another,  unless 
he  be  in  some  respect  distinct  and  separate.  You  have  no  alter- 
native but  to  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  or  admit  a  Divine 
plurality. 

8.  Again  ;  is  not  Jesus  Christ  equal  with  God  the  Father  ?  Phil, 
ii.  6,  «  Let  the  same  mind  be  in  you  which  was  also  in  Christ 
Jesus  ;  who  being  in  the  form  of  God  thought  it  no  robbery 
to  be  EquAL  with  Grod."  And  again  in  the  10th  verse  :  *<  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  eyery  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven  and 


3S6 


things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  every  tongue 
confess  that  he  is  Lord,  to  the  gh)ry  of  God  the  Father."  Here 
is  a  person  "in  the  form  of  God," — "equal  with  God" — con- 
fessed to  be  "  Lord,"  the  object  of  universal  worship,  and  yet 
distinct  from  «*  God  the  Father."  Now  either  Jesus  Christ  is  not 
God,  or  there  is  a  pluralitv  of  pei  f^-  ns  in  the  Dei(y.  'I'he  same 
doctrine  is  taught  in  the  parsli'^l  passage :  Zech.  xiii.  7, 
"  Awake,  O  sword,  '»gainst  my  shepherd  ;  smite  the  man  that  is 
my  feMow,  (i.  e.  fqual,j  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  Here  the 

Lord  of  Hosts"  speaks  of  another  who  is  his  "  fellow,"  or 
equal,  in  other  wordj^.  who  is  also  God  !  There  is  one  way,  and 
but  one  way  of  getting  over  this  argument,  and  that  is  by  styl- 
ing the  whole  an     anomaly  !" 

9.  God  the  Father  speaks  to  the  Son  as  God  :  Heb.  i.  8, "  And 
unto  the  Son  he  saith,  (God  saith,)  thy  throne,  0  God^  is  forever 
and  ever.  God,  even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee.  And  thou 
Lord,  in  the  beginning  has  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth." 
Now  it  is  evident  from  this  passage,  first,  that  the  Father  is 
God,  and  that  the  Son  is  God  :  and  secondly,  that  God  the  Son 
is  a  distinct  person  from  God  the  Father,  or  such  an  address 
would  be  absurd.  Both  the  Old  and  New  Testament  teach  that 
there  is  but  one  God  ;  but  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
teach  that  there  is  more  than  one  called  by  all  the  Divine  names 
and  titles,  and  set  forth  as  an  object  of  supreme  worship.  It  is 
impossible,  therefore,  for  any  believer  in  the  inspiration  of 
Scripture,  to  doubt  there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Deity. 

The  public  will  judge  whether  I  have  not  answered  all  his 
arguments ;  let  them  now  observe  if  he  answers  one  of  mine. 

PAUL. 

 ^» :  imn 

Seventh-day,  7th  mo.  27,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXIL 

«  Paganism,  atheism,  popery  and  deism,  have  each  had 
their  day  ;  each  has  fought  its  battle  with  the  Gospel,  and  has 
left  the  field."  So  says  my  opponent ;  and  happy  would  it  be  for 
the  world,  were  it  only  half  true.  Paganism  yet  sways  her 
ebon  sceptre  over  a  large  majority  of  mankind,  and  will  long 
reign  triumphant,  unless  attacked  by  other  than  the  puny  wea- 
pons of  my  opponent.  It  needs  other  power  besides  "the  lite- 
ral and  logical  sense  of  the  Scriptures,"  to  change  the  heart, 
and  give  a  victory  to  the  pure  spirit  of  the  Gospel.  If  atheism 
and  deism  have  «*  left  the  field,"  never  to  return,  it  is  cause  of 
rejoicing;  but  I  am  much  mistaken  if  the  Gospel  soldier  will 
not  be  again  called  to  buckle  on  his  harness  and  engage  these 


337 


enemies  of  Christianity  !  When  I  read  religious  newspapers, 
and  observe  almost  every  enterprize  of  a  religious  nature, 
coupled  with  a  scheme  for  raising  money,  a  cunningly  devis- 
ed" plan  of  beggary,  and  contrast  these  proceedings  with  tliose 
of  our  Lord  and  his  disinterested  disciples,  methinks  I  see  the 
enemy  scattering  widely  and  thickly  the  seeds  of  infidelity  and 
unbelief.  As  for  pf»pery,  whilst  it  has  so  many  defenders 
amongst  Protestants,  whilst  its  errors  and  absurdities  are  pub- 
licly vindicated  by  my  opptment,  I  can  see  little  ground  for  the 
assertion,  that  it  •<  has  left  the  field."  They  who  defend  the 
doctrine  of  "  three  distinct  and  separate  persons  in  the  God- 
head,'* are  striving  to  maintain  popery  in  one  of  its  distinguish- 
ing characteristics. 

"  The  great  enemy  of  truth  at  the  present  day  is  Unitarian- 
ism."  So  says  "  Paul  his  assertion,  however,  is  gratui- 
tous!  it  is  miserably  begging  the  question! — If  by  the  term 
«  Unitarianism,"  we  are  to  understand  simply  a  belief  in  but 
-  one  Godf  I  think  it  will  puzzle  <•  Paul"  to  prove  this  belief  in- 
imical to  truth.  Ever>  man  who  believes  there  is  hut  one  God, 
is  in  fact  a  Unitarian  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term ;  he  that 
believes  in  the  existence  of  three  Gods  may  be  a  Trinitarian 
or  Tritheist,  it  is  not  much  matter  which  term  we  use,  they 
mean  the  same  thina:,  as  may  very  easily  be  proved  ! ! ! 

But,  says  Paul."  Lnitarianism  *«  inculcates  none  of  the 
peculiar  d»»ctrines  of  Christianity.  It  professes  to  receive  the 
Bible  as  a  revelation,  but  tears  it  to  pieces  by  biblical  criticism  !" 
Here  aerain  he  begs  the  question  !  Is  not  the  doctrine  of  one 
God  a  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Bible  . — And  is  there  any  sect 
who  tear  the  Bible  to  pieces  by  biblical  criticism,  more  than 
the  Trinitarians?  If  biblical  criticism  be  a  crime,  I  know  of 
no  people  who  are  more  guilty  of  it  than  they ;  nor  do  I  know 
any  people  who  take  greater  liberties  w  ith  the  Scriptures ! 

My  opponent  has  made  a  pompous  display  of  his  learning  in 
a  tedious  account  of  what  Unitarians  do  not  believe.  This  state- 
ment, which  is  wholly  foreign  to  the  point  in  discussion^  is  a 
religious  fraud.  In  the  first  place,  as  applied  to  Unitarians  ge- 
nerally, it  is  untrue.  In  the  next  place,  it  is  intended  to  con- 
found the  religions  society  I  advocate,  with  others  who  hold 
different  sentiments — an  attempt  unworthy  the  character  of  a 
professor  of  reliction,  bu*  more  odious  when  coming  from  a  pro- 
fessed minister  of  the  Go'^pel.  It  is,  however,  what  we  might 
expect  from  such  a  source.  Therdot^ieal  seminaries  may  make 
preachers,  but  they  can  neither  confer  Divin**  grace,  nor  those 
amiable  tempers  which  characterize  a  genuine  minister  of  the 
Gospel. 

"  The  cardinal  principle  of  this  system,  the  rejection  of  the 
43 


35$ 


Trinity,  Amicus  in  your  name  lias  already  avowed ;  you  will 
henceibrth  stand  before  the  Christian  public  with  the  name  of 
*  Unitarianism*  on  your  front."  Now,  if  "  Unitarianism"  mean 
simply  the  belief  in  only  one  divine  Bting,  we  shall  not  object  to 
this  application  of  it.  it  is  certainly  much  more  rational,  as 
weM  as  more  Scriptural  than  the  <*  Tritheism"  of  my  opponent. 
Tue  idea  of  one  Mmighty,  Omnipresent,  Infinite  Being,  seems 
to  us  to  be  accordant  with  Scripture  and  reason.  The  idea  of 
three,  with  neither !  !  The  word  Unitarian,"  dressed  out  as 
it  pleases  my  opponent,  looks  ill  indeed !  but  «  Tritheism" 
looks  worse,  in  its  own  naked  deformity  ! ! ! 

.1  would  not  willingly  brand  the  system  of  my  opponent  with 
a  worse  name  than  it  deserves;  but  I  think  it  so  evidently 
"  Tritheism,"  or  a  belief  in  three  Gods,  that  no  unprejudiced 
person  can  doubt  it  for  a  moment.  In  order  to  show  that  this 
sentiment  is  not  expressed  without  due  reflection,  I  will  state  a 
few  arguments  in  its  defence.  The  first  of  which  I  will  extract 
from  the  writings  of  the  celebrated  William  Penn,  founder  of 
Pennsylvania,  published  in  1668,  under  the  title  of  "The 
Sandy  Foundation  Shaken." 

If  there  be  three  distinct  and  separate  persons  [in  the  God- 
head,] then  three  distinct  and  separate  substances,  because 
every  person  is  inseparable  from  its  own  substance,  and  as  there 
is  no  person  that  is  not  a  substance,  in  common  acceptation 
among  men,  so  do  tlie  Scriptures  plentifully  agree  herein ;  and 
since  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Spirit  is  God, 
(which  their  opinion  necessitates  them  to  confess,)  then,  unless 
the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  three  distinct  nothings,  they 
must  be  three  distinct  substances,  and  consequently  three  dis- 
tinct Gods,^^ 

«  It  is  further  proved,  if  it  be  considered,  that  either  the  di- 
vine persons  Are  finite  ov  iiiflnite  ;  if  the  first,  then  something 
finite  is  inseparable  to  the  infinite  substance,  whereby  some- 
thing finite  is  in  God  1 — If  the  last,  then  three  distinct  Infi- 
nites, three  Omnipotents,  three  Eternals,  and  so  three  Gods  ! ! ! 

<<If  each  person  be  God,  and  that  God  subsists  in  three  per- 
sons, then  in  each  person  are  three  persons  or  Gods,  and  from 
three  they  will  increase  to  nine,  and  so  ad  infinitum, 

"But  if  they  will  deny  the  three  persons  or  subsistences  to  be 
infinite,  (for  so  there  would  unavoidably  be  three  Gods,)  it  will 
follow  that  they  must  hefinite,  and  so  the  absurdity  is  not  abat- 
ed from  what  it  was ! — for  that  of  one  substance  having  three 
subsistences,  is  not  a  greater  [absurdity]  than  that  an  infinite 
Being  should  have  three  finite  modes  of  subsisting  I  But  though 
that  mode  which  is  finite  cannot  answer  to  a  substance  that  is 
infinite  ;  yet,  to  try  if  we  can  make  their  principle  to  consist, 


^39 

let  us  conceive  that  three  persons  which  may  he  finite  separate" 
ly,  make  up  an  infinite  conjunctly :  however  this  will  follow, 
that  they  are  no  more  incommunicahle  or  separate,  nor  pro- 
perly subsistences,  but  a  subsistence  :  for  the  infinite  substance 
cannot  find  a  subsistence  in  any  one  or  two,  therefore  [it  must 
find  it  in  them]  jointly.  And  here  I  am  willing  to  overlook 
finiteness  in  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  which  this  doctrine 
must  suppose ! ! ! 

«*  Again ;  if  these  three  distinct  persons  are  one  with  some  one 
thing,  as  Trinitarians  say  they  are  with  the  Godhead,  then  they 
are  not  incommunicable  among  themselves,  but  so  much  the 
contrary  as  to  be  one  in  the  place  of  another !  For  if  that  the 
only  God  is  the  Father,  and  Christ  be  that  only  God,  then  is 
Clirist  the  Father !  So,  if  that  one  God  be  the  Son,  and  the 
Spirit  that  one  God,  then  is  the  Spirit  the  Son ;  and  so  round. 
Nor  is  it  possible  to  stop — or  that  it  should  be  otherwise ;  since> 
if  the  Divine  nature  be  inseparable  from  the  three  persons,  or 
-  communicated  to  each,  and  each  person  have  the  whole  divine 
nature,  then  is  the  Son  in  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  in  the  Son— 
unless  the  Godhead  be  as  incommunicable  to  the  persons  as 
they  are  reported  to  be  among  themselves ;  or,  that  the  three 
persons,  have  distinctly  allotted  them,  such  a  proportion  of  the 
divine  nature  as  is  not  communicable  to  each  other,  which  is 
alike  absurd !  Much  more  might  be  said  to  manifest  the  gross 
contradiction  of  this  Trinitarian  doctrine,  as  vulgarly  received, 
but  I  must  be  brief." 

If  we  look  into  the  Athanasian  Creed,  as  it  is  called,  we 
shall  find  the  existence  of  three  distinct  and  separate  persons 
in  the  Godhead  asserted  and  defended ;  to  each  of  which,  in 
their  separate  capacity,  is  attributed  eternity,  incomprehensi- 
bility, omnipotence,  equality  !  Now,  if  they  be  distinct  and  se- 
parate, and  possess  these  attributes,  then,  it  inevitably  follows, 
that  there  are  three  Gods  !  It  only  aggravates  the  absurdity  to 
tell  us  they  are  one ;  for  if  they  be  distinct  and  separate,  this  is 
impossible ! ! ! 

Now,  how  do  the  Trinitarians  get  over  these  palpable  conse- 
quences of  their  contradictory  scheme?  Why,  after  writing 
volumes  in  its  defence,  and  finding  themselves  swamped  at  last, 
they  gravely  tell  us,  «<  it  is  a  mystery,"  that  is,  it  is  impossible 
to  understand  it! — This  is  all  very  well,  and  if  they  had  rested 
here,  modestly  professing  a  belief  of  what  they  acknowledge 
they  know  nothing,  we  might  pity,  but  could  not  blame  them  ! 
<<A  man  is  accepted  according  to  that  which  he  hath,  and  not 
according  to  that  which  he  hath  not."  But  when,  instead  of 
this,  they  take  a  different  course,  anathematizing  and  sending 
to  eternal  perdition,  all  who  cannot  believe  both  mysteries  and 


contradictory  propositions,  they  lay  themselves  open  to  the  me- 
rited censure  of  that  Apostolic  rebuke :  Who  art  thou  that 
judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To  his  own  master  hestandeth 
or  falieth."  Rom.  xiv.  4. 

"Paul"  thinks  he  has  answered  all  my  arguments.  It  may 
be  so;  i  have  not  taken  the  pains  to  review  them — but  1  will 
venture  to  say  he  has  not  refuted  (me  of*  them.    It  is  easy,  in 

PatjIi's"  way,  to  answer  an  argument ,  to  refute  une  is  quite 
another  thing !  Let  us  hiive  a  specimen  of  his  mode  of  answer- 
ing me. — In  a  former  number  I  asserted,  '*  if  God  be  one  he 
cannot  be  three  persons."  Now,  how  does  **  Paul"  refute  this 
plain  truth  ?  He  does  not  even  attempt  it !  His  whole  drift  is  to 
make  Amicus  a  believer  in  absurdities  as  well  as  himself!  '*lf 
God,"  says  he,  <*  be  one,  lie  cannot  be  two  persons.  It  is  no 
more  impossible,  contradictory,  or  incomprehensible,  that  there 
should  be  three  in  one,  than  that  there  should  be  two  in  one^  and 
you  must  hold  to  two  in  one,  or  renounce  the  divinity  of  Christ." 
Now,  if  it  can  be  shown,  that  God  and  Christ  the  divine  Word, 
are  one — the  same  Divine  power — the  same  Creator — the  same 
omnipotent  all-wise  Being,  then  it  will  appear  that  we  are  un- 
der no  necessity  either  <*  to  hold  to  two  in  one,  or  to  renounce 
the  divinity  of  Christ !"  There  cannot  be  a  better  evidence  for 
this  purpose  than  our  Lord  himself,  who,  speaking  of  his  own 
divinity,  says  :  <*  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  John  x.  30.  The 
Evangelist,  in  a  very  clear  manner,  tells  us  the  same  truth, 
where  he  says :  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God."  John  i.  1.  These  texts 
show  very  clearly,  not  how  two  separate  persons  can  be  two 
and  yet  one,"  but  that  God  the  Creator,  and  Christ  the  Sa- 
viour, are,  as  W^illiam  Penn  expresses  it,  *<  the  same  one,  holy, 
just,  merciful,  almighty  and  eternal  God."  For  Christ,  as  the 
Apostle  affirms,  «  was  God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  1  Tim.  iii. 
16,  *<He  was  the  power  of  God  and  the  wisdom  of  God.'' 
1  Cor.  1.  «  He  was  Emmanuel,  God  with  us."  Mat.  i.  23.  He 
was,  in  fine,  "  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour."  Jude  25.  That 
power  by  which  all  nature  was  called  into  existence,  is  that 
same  power  which  raised  Lazarus  from  the  grave,  restored  the 
withered  arm,  and  blasted  the  fruitless  fig  tree. 

God,"  said  the  Apostle,  "  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  This 
flesh,  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  crucified  under  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  laid  in  the  grave,  and  by  Divine  power  raised  again, 
was  no  part  of  the  Deity  ;  it  was  mortal  fiesh.  This  is  evident 
in  thati^  died  J  The  Apostle  confirms  this  sentiment,  where  he 
says :  Hcb.  il  16,  iv.  17,  He,"  the  divine  Word,  **  took  not 
wpon  him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of 
Abraham;,  and  was  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin." 


He  was  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the  flesh.'^  Acts 
ii.  30.  It  appears  to  me,  that  many  have  fallen  into  confusion 
and  error,  by  failing  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  divine 
Word  and  the  means  by  which  it  was  so  marv  ellously  manifested 
to  the  world  !  By  keeping  this  distinction  always  in  view,  the 
most  difficult  Scripture  passages,  relating  to  Christ,  are  easily 
solved. 

At  the  close  of  my  last  communication  I  observed,  that  «« the 
argument  of  my  opponent  drawn  from  one  of  the  numerous 
anomalies  of  the  Hebrew  language,  was  below  criticism  I 
think  so  still — but  as  there  may  be  some  who  think  there  is 
good  argument  in  the  sou7id  «)f  Hebrew  anomalies,  and  bad 
Latin,  I  will,  for  their  sake,  spend  a  few  minutes  with  a  view  to 
dissipate  such  an  illusion  ! 

"  Paul"  says,  •*  God  is  a  plural  Being." — Now  if  this  term 
conveys  any  definite  idea  to  my  read^^rs,  i  confess  their  percep- 
tion is  more  acute  than  mine! — To  me  it  appears  perfectl)'  in- 
congruous— a  contradiction  in  itself! — Plural  means  more  than 
one.  A  Being  is  but  one  J  Now  can  an>  thing  be  more  than  one, 
and  only  one  at  the  same  time  ?  The  proposition  involves  a  gross 
absurdity  ! ! ! 

In  order,  however,  to  make  us  relish  absurdities,  he  attempts 
to  garnish  them  with  Hebrew  Scripture  !  But  what  do  his  ar- 
guments prove  ?  Nothing  at  all,  as  1  shall  endeavour  to  demon- 
strate. He  tells  us  Elohim  ((iod)  is  a  phirul  noun,  and  he  finds 
it  nominative  to  a  singular  verb.  Now,  what  is  there  wonder- 
ful in  all  this?  He  ought  to  know,  if  he  knows  any  thing  about 
the  Hebrew  language,  that  it  is  a  circumstance  by  no  means 
uncommon,  to  find  plural  nouns  used  with  singular  verbs,  and 
vice  versa ;  for  the  truth  of  which  1  refer  him  to  Buxtorf,  Park- 
hurst,  Castellus,  Robertson,  Simonis  or  any  other  good  writer 
on  the  Hebrew  language.  If  **  Paul's"  theological  notions 
have  no  better  foundation  than  such  anomalies,  they  will  be 
very  easily  blown  away !  as  he  may  rest  assured,  that  Moses 
did  not  much  concern  himself  with  the  niceties  of  modern 
grammarians  ! 

But  how  does  ^<  Paul"  know  that  Elohim  is  a  plural 
noun  ?  If  Elohim  be  plural,  how  does  it  happen  that  the  hay 
be  not  dropped  ?  Every  novice  in  Hebrew  learning  knows,  that 
singular  nouns  ending  in  hay  thrown  it  away  before  the  plural 
termination  yod  mem ;  as  is  the  case  where  *'  Gods"  is  in- 
tended. Exod.  XV.  11,  Who  is  like  unto  thee  0  Lord,  among 
the  gods."  In  this  place  the  word  Elim  without  the  hay  is 
used.  El  is  the  singular  as  well  as  Elohinif  and  when  plu- 
ral, Elim.  Elohim  appears  to  be  used  as  a  masculine  singu- 
lar noun — the  yod  mem  constitute  it  an  hemantic  noun.  Some 


342 


copies  have  it  without  the  ijod,  for  the  yod  as  well  as  the 
vauf  is  often  a  masoretic  point — in  the  one  case,  a  long  chi- 
rick,  in  the  other  a  cholem.  Moreover,  if  Elohim  be  used 
to  indicate  '*  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,'*  how  does  my 
learned  opponent  account  tor  tlie  use  of  this  word  in  reference 
to  an  idol  ?  as  in  Exod.  xxii.  20,  He  that  sacrificeth  unto 
any  god,  (laeJohim)  save  unto  the  Lord  only,"  &c.  1  Kings 
xviii.  27,  **  Elijah  mocked  them,  and  said— -cry  aloud,  for  he 
is  a  God,  '  &c.  (Elohim.) — See  also  Judges  xvi.  23,  and  many 
other  passages  !  And,  how  again,  does  "  PAUii"  account  for  the 
use  of  this  term  in  reference  to  aman,  as  in  Exod.  xxi.  6,  and 
in  other  places !  In  this  passage,  where  our  translators,  with- 
out any  warrant  from  the  context,  have  rendered  the  word 
plural,  Elohim  is  used  for  a  judge  !  Now,  what  are  we  to 
infer  from  all  this.^  Are  we  to  conclude  that  idols  and  men  are 
Trinities  ? 

With  respect  to  the  passage  quoted  by  my  opponent,  John 
xxiv.  19,  in  which  the  adjective  "  holy"  is  'plural,  it  is  only  ne- 
cessary to  oppose  to  it,  1  Sam.  vi.  20,  and  Psalm  xcix.  9,  where 
the  same  adjective  is  connected  with  Elohim"  in  the  singular^ 
to  shew  that  nothing  of  the  kind  intimated  by  Paul,"  could 
have  been  intended  by  the  inspired  writers  ;  but  that  it  is 
plainly  an  idiom,  an  irregularity  of  the  language,  which  had 
not  then  been  made  to  submit  to  the  arbitrary  rules  of  modern 
grammarians. 

That  Elohim  sometimes  occurs  as  a  plural  noun,  I  shall 
not  deny,  but  this  is  only  one  among  the  many  proofs  of  the 
irregularity  of  the  Hebrew  language!  Elohim  is  used  with 
adjectiveSf  pronouns,  and  verbs,  both  plural  and  singular  I  See 
Judges  viii.  33,-1  Kings  xi.  5,  33,  where  it  is  applied  without 
any  change  to  a  goddess,  Baalberith,  the  idol  of  the  Shechem- 
ites  and  Astarte,  or  Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians. 

That  must  be  a  weak  cause  indeed,  which  requires  for  its 
support,  the  grammatical  construction  of  a  language,  replete 
with  so  many  anomalies.  If,  as  **Paul"  asserts,  a  plural  noun 
be  used  to  shew,  that  God  is  a  plural  Being,  and  that  plural 
noun  be  nominative  to  a  singular  verb,  to  shew  the  unity  of  this 
plurality,  how  does  it  happen,  that  in  other  places,  the  same 
noun  is  used  with  a  plural  verb  as  in  Gen.  xx.  13  ?  Instead 
therefore  of  proving,  what  my  opponent  wished,  this  fact  alone 
is  sufficient  to  overturn  his  whole  argument !  Had  there  been 
a  design  on  the  part  of  the  inspired  penmen,  by  the  use  of  a 
plural  noun  with  a  singular  verb,  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  « three 
persons  in  one  God,"  the  evidence  of  that  design  would  be  uni- 
form and  invariable — the  contrary  clearly  proves  the  absence 
of  any  design  of  the  kind.  But  if  they  had  such  a  design,  they 


S4S 

were  extremely  deficient  in  a  main  point ;  for  it'  they  prove 
any  thing  about  plurality  of  Gods,  (or  persons,  if  Paul"  pre- 
fer the  term,)  they  as  much  prove  Jivz^  or  Jixe  thousanay  as  they 
prove  "  ^hree,'*  since  there  is  not  a  word  in  any  of  the  pas- 
sages implying /Aret;/ 

1  will  now  reciii  to  some  of  "  Paul's"  other  arguments, 
which  seem  intended  to  prove  tliat  Moses  was  mistaken  when 
he  said  :  "  Hear  ()  Israel,  JEHOVAH  our  God  is  one  JEHO- 
VAH." Deut.  vi.  4.  In  his  proof  No.  4,  Letter  xxx.  be  says: 
"  The  person  who  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre, 
(Gen.  xviii.  1.)  and  who  is  called  JEHOVAH  fourteen  times 
in  that  single  chapter,  is  spoken  of  in  the  xixth  chap,  ver,  24, 
as  a  distinct  person  from  JEHOVAH  in  Heaven."  Thus  in  his 
gross  and  carnal  conception  he  makes  one  JEHOVAH  to 
stand  upon  earth,  and  call  down  fire  from  another  distinct  JE- 
HOVAH in  heaven  ! — As  if  he,  who  fills  heaven  and  earth, 
whom  the  heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain,"  and  who  is  there- 
-  fore  equall}  present  in  all  places,  could  be  divided  !!! — As  this 
is  an  absurdity  and  impossibility,  Paul"  consequently  be- 
lieves in  a  pltiraiity  of  Gods!  If  "  Paul"  will  be  *«  honest"  to 
himself,  he  must  perceive,  that  so  far  as  he  had  any  definite 
idea,  when  writing  the  above  paragraph,  it  was  that  of  at  least 
two  distinct  Gods,  the  One  in  heaven,  (somewhere  in  the  clouds, 
I  presume,  as  that  is  where  the  fire  and  brimstone  seems  to  have 
come  from,;  the  other  on  the  earth,  this  little  planet,  this  speck 
in  the  immensity  of  God's  works !  !  ! 

From  the  sentiment  expressed  by  "  Paul"  in  the  above  re- 
cited passage,  it  is  undeniably  evident  that  the  "  persons"  which 
constitute  his  compound  Deity,  slvp  finite/  One  caw  be  in  one 
place,  whilst  the  other  is  in  another  /  And  as  he  is  pleased  to 
allow  his  *•  triune  G(jd"  the  attribute  of  infinity,  it  follows  of 
course  that  three  finite  persons  can  make  an  hifinitc  one ! !  I  Ad- 
mirable logic  ! 

"  The  name  JEHOVAH,  it  is  well  known,  implies  self-exis- 
tence, independence,  immutability  and  eternity,  and  is  there- 
fore the  incommunicable  name  of  the  onlv  God."  So  says 
•'Paul!"  and  yet  he  tells  us  that  the  JEHOVAH  to  whom 
Abraham  prayed,  is  a  distinct  person  from  JEHOVAH  in 
heaven  !  of  course,  there  must  be  two  self-existent,  indepen- 
dent, immutable  and  eternal  Jehovahs  ! ! ! 

"  But  why  has  God  plural  titles,  and  plural  attributes,  if  He 
he  not  a  plural  Being?"  Fhat  is,  why  has  God  more  titles  than 
one,  or  more  attributes  than  one,  if  he  be  not  a  compound  Being ; 
if  he  be  not  three  persons,  and  yet  not  three  persons,  hit  one  per- 
son? If  there  be  any  meaning  in  this  question,  it  is,  that  plu- 
rality of  titles  or  of  attributes  implies  a  compound  mode  of  ex- 


344 


istence  !  And  so,  when  we  find  a  man  who  has  the  attributes  of 
understanding,  will,  and  memory,  and  the  titles  of  L.  L.  D.  F. 
R.  S.  F.  S.  A.  M.  P.  &c.  attached  to  his  name,  we  are  to  con- 
sider him  a  plural  Being — a  kind  of  a  trinity  ! ! ! 

Upon  "  this  infinitely  important"  kind  of  logic,  «  Paul** 
thinks  "the  whole  Christian  s>'stem  hangs."  Amicus  has  a 
better  opinion  of  the  Christian  system,  than  to  suppose  it  hangs 
upon  absurdities.  The  divinity,  the  atonement,  the  interces- 
sion of  Christ,  the  divinity  of  the  Ho\y  Spirit,  the  inspiration 
of  the  sacred  penmen,  and  hope  of  salvation''  through  Christ, 
are  all  consistent  with  the  unity  of  God — they  were  believed 
by  the  primitive  church,  long  before  the  doctrine  of  three  per- 
sons in  one  God  was  invented,  and  they  will  remain  to  be  the 
faith  and  consolation  of  the  experimental  Christian,  when  it  is 
swept  away  among  the  other  errors  and  inventions  of  popery 
and  the  popish  church  ! 

<^  We  acknowledge  [the  doctrine  of  three  persons  making 
one  person]  is  a  mystery  !"  If  he  had  been  candid  enough  to 
acknowledge  it  was  an  absurdity,  a  contradictory  propositiorif 
his  cause  would  not  have  been  more  injured,  than  by  his  at- 
tempts to  defend  it ! 

*«  We  rely  for  proof  solely  on  revelation,  and  only  use  reason 
to  determine  the  grammatical  and  logical  sense  of  that  revela- 
tion." It  appears,  however,  that  he  relied  upon  the  revelation 
of  Athanasius  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  instead  of  the  Bible! 
and  has  used  or  rather  abused  his  reason  in  the  defence  of 
ungrammatical  and  illogical  propositions,  <«that  three  are  one 
and  one  is  three,  and  yet  that  three  are  not  one  nor  one  three. 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  prove  the  unity  of  the  Deity,  but 
take  that  for  granted."  But  no  sooner  does  he  take  it  for  grant- 
ed, than  he  attempts  to  prove  that  the  Deity  subsists  in  three  dis- 
tinct and  separate  persons !  all  having  self-existence,  indepen- 
dence, immutability  and  eternity  ! ! ! 

«  We  shall  not  attempt  to  prove  that  the  word  'person,'' 
when  applied  to  the  Deity  means  precisely  the  same  thing  as 
when  applied  to  men,  but  simply,  that  no  other  word  will  do  as 
well  to  express  the  distinction  between  Father,  Son,  and  Spi- 
rit."— <*  Paul"  has  done  well  to  tell  us  what  the  term  person 
does  not  mean!  But  he  would  have  done  better  if  he  had  told 
us  what  it  does  mean  !  It  means,  I  suppose,  an  indefinite  some- 
thing, for  Trinitarians  to  use  as  a  kind  of  trumpet,  through 
which  to  try  heresy,"  and  defame  their  sober  Christian 
neighbours  !  But  is  it  not  surprising  that  those  orthodox  pro- 
fessors who  pretend  to  make  the  Bible  the  supreme  and  only 
standard  of  faith  and  practice,"  who  tell  us  about  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  should  have  the  boldness  to  insi- 


345 


iiuate,  that  this  supreme  standard,  this  only  rule,  and  the  inspu 
red  penmen,  are  all  so  defective,  as  to  give  us  no  other  word 
that  will  do  as  well  as  a  term  of  their  own  invention — and  which, 
after  all,  that  champion  of  Trinitarianism,  Dr.  Miller,  tells  us 
he  does  not  understand  ? 

The  other  arguments  of  <«  Paul"  shall  he  answered  in  a 
future  number,  if  life  and  health  permit.  Want  of  room  and  a 
fear  of  <*  prolixity''  prevents  me  from  doing  more  at  this  time : — 
Yet  I  have  said  enough  to  shew,  that  henceforth  the  Trinita- 
rians will  stand  before  the  Christian  public  with  the  name  of 
TRITUEISM  on  their  front !  AMICUS. 

Saturday,  Aut^ust  3,  1822. 
LETTER  XXXII. 

ON  THE  TRINITY, 

"  Ml  men  should  honour  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Fathek.3' 

John  V.  23. 

Christianity  is  distinguished  from  Polytheism  hy  the  be*- 
lief  of  one  God ;  from  Mahomedanism,  Judaism  and  Deism  by 
the  belief  that  this  one  God  exists  in  three  persons.  As  to  the 
followers  of  the  Arabian  imposter,  it  is  well  known  that  the 
Trinity  is  the  greatest  object  of  their  opposition ;  and  it  is 
also  a  fact,  that  the  prevalence  of  Sabellianism  in  those  once 
Christian  countries,  was  one  occasion  of  Mahomet's  success. 
The  Jews,  as  is  abundantly  evident  from  their  ancient  writings, 
i  once  held  the  Trinity.  Even  after  the  coming  of  Christ,  in  the 
second  century.  Rabbi  Judah  Hakkadosh,  the  compiler  of  their 
ancient  doctrines,  sums  up  their  views  of  God  in  these  words: 
I  «  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  Three  in 
'  Unity,  One  in  Trinity.''  But  in  later  periods,  from  opposition 
to  the  divinity  of  Christ  they  have  been  led  to  deny  the  Tri- 
nity. That  all  Deists  oppose  this  doctrine,  I  need  not  say.  If 
therefore  it  be  any  argument  in  your  favour,  you  certainly 
have  all  the  Mahoniedans,  Jews,  Deists,  and  Pagans  in  the 
world  on  your  side  !  As  an  evidence  how  little  difference  there 
is  on  this  and  other  points  between  Unitarians  and  Mahome- 
tans, Leslie  has  preserved  in  his  "Theological  Tracts"  a  let- 
ter from  the  former  to  the  Moorish  ambassador  then  at  London, 
proposing  an  union  with  the  latter.  But  with  the  Bible  on  our 
side  we  have  no  fear  of  the  event. 

I  have  frequently  charged  you  with  denying  every  pecnliftr 
44 


3^6 


doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and  "  Amicus"  asks ;  "Is  not  the  be- 
lief in  one  God  a  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Gospel  ?"  1  answer, 
in  the  Trinitarian  sense,  Yes ;  but  in  the  Unitarian  sense,  No  : 
for  all  the  infidel  sects  above  mentioned  are  thorough  in  the 
belief,  that  God  exists  in  one  person. 

It  is  an  occurrence  so  uncommon  for  **  Amicus"  to  notice 
my  arguments,  that  1  am  bound  in  politeness  to  notice  his  re- 
plies. 

Obj.  1,  He  has  a  long  and  learned  argument  to  prove  that 
Meim  is  not  a  plural  but  a  singular  noun.  As  I  write  for  plain 
English  people,  I  shall  not  enter  into  a  learned  criticism,  which 
few  could  understand ;  but  in  confirmation  of  my  former  as- 
sertion, would  simply  remark,  1.  Our  translators  reridcr  it 
"gods"  nearly  two  hundred  times.  Any  one  who  will  turn  to 
Judges  X.  6,  will  find  what  «  Amicus"  calls  a  singular  noun 
rendered  gods"  five  times  in  a  single  verse  :  "  And  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  served  the  gods  (Aleim)  of  Syria,  and  the  gods 
of  Zidon,  and  the  gods  of  Moab,  and  the  gods  ut'  tiie  children 
of  Ammon,  and  the  gods  of  the  Philistines."  2.  It  is  nomina- 
tive to  a  plural  verb,  Gf-n.  xxxv.  r,  He  built  an  altar  there 
and  called  the  place  El  Bethel,  because  there  God  appeared 
unto  him"  (literally  the  Aleim  were  revealed  unto  him.)  Here 
the  verb  «  appeared"  is  plural.  And  I  defy  **  Amicus"  to  quote 
an  instance  in  any  language  of  a  noun  nominative  to  a  plural 
verb,  when  the  noun  does  not  contain  the  idea  of  plurality. 
The  name  "  Aleim,"  therefore,  does  teach  that  there  is  a  plu- 
rality  in  the  Godhead.   3.  It  has  plural  adjectives.  Deui.  iv.  7, 

What  nation  is  there,  that  hath  God  so  nigh  unto  them  ?" 
Here  the  adjective  "nigh"  (in  Heb.)  is  plural,  agreeing  with 
Aleim.  4.  Parkhurst,  whom  ''Amicus"  particularly  recom- 
mends as  "  a  good  writer  on  the  Hebrew  language,''  says  ex- 
pressly that  Aleim  is  a  "  plural  noun,  denoting  tlie  ever  blessed 
Trinity."  He  also  refers  to  the  Jewish  Talmudists  to  prove  that 
they  held  the  same  idea.  As  to  *<  Simonis,''  another  author  of 
whom  "  Amicus"  speaks,  I  have  not  been  so  happy  as  ever  be- 
fore to  hear  his  name.  (Can  it  be  tirat  this  profound  Hebrew 
scholar  is  so  ignorant  of  Latin  as  to  mistake  a  genitive  for  a  no- 
minative case,  and  after  all  by  this  term  mean  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  Father  Simon  of  France  ?)  5.  The  Septuagini 
translators  render  the  word  Aleim  by  the  Greek  word  theoi 
(gods)  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  times,  v.  Trommius'  Con- 
cordance. Yet  when  applied  to  the  true  God,  to  remind  the 
Gentiles  of  the  divine  Unity^  like  our  English  translators,  they 
have  always  rendered  it  theos  (God.)  6.  Lastly,  to  remove  all 
doubt,  we  have  the  infallible  authority  of  our  Lord  himself. 
John  X.  35,  quoting  from  Ps.  Ixxxii.  2  and  6,  he  renders  Aleim 


34r 


»*  gods."  "  If  he  called  them  gods  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
came,"  &c.  This  is  decisive.  It  is  therefore  a  plural  name.  And 
if  there  be  any  meaning  in  the  name  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
applied  to  the  Supreme,  He  is  a  plural  Being.  But  the  inspir- 
ed  writers  use  tliis  term  sometimes  as  nominative  to  a  singulurp 
and  sometimes  sl plural  verb,  which  shows  they  had  no  design  to 
teach  piuraJ.itij."  •*  It  shows  they  intended  to  teach  both  plurality 
and  unity  in  God,  and  not  the  one  without  the  other. — •*  But  this 
name  is  sometimes  applied  to  an  idol,  and  sometimes  to  a 
man;  does  this  prove  that  these  are  a  Trinity  ?"  Answer.  Just 
so  the  English  titles  «•  lord"  and  <•  god"  are  applied  to  noblemen 
and  to  Sataiu  (He  is  called  the  «  god  of  this  world."j  Does 
this  prove  tliat  earls  and  dukes  and  devils  have  all  the  attributes 
of  the  Supreme!  The  Hebrew,  like  the  English  terms,  are  so 
'  applied  by  a  sort  of  accomniodution. 

Obj.  2.  **  Plural  titles  applied  to  God  no  more  prove  him  a 
plural  Being,  tiian  more  titles  thun  out  affixed  to  a  man's  name 
prove  that  man  a  plural  being."  Here  he  purposely  confounds 
a  plural  title  with  a  number  of  different  titles  I  The  Meim^  for  in- 
stance, nre  called,  as  I  have  before  proved,  «*  Makers,"**  Crea- 
tors," *<  Watchers,"  **  Holy  Ones,"  which  to  me  is  proof  of  a 
plurality.  He  thinks  it  no  more  a  proof  of  plurality  in  God, 
than  the  titles  of  L.  L.  D.  F.  A.  S.  M.  P.  doctor,  esquire,  &c. 
affixed  to  a  man's  name  prove  him  a  plural  being.  W  ho  does  not 
see  the  quibble  !  Call  a  man,  an  individual,  *'  doctors,"  esquires" 
or  any  other  title  in  the  plural  number,  and  you  will  at  once 
see  the  absurdity.  Common  sense  says  such  titles  imply  a  plu' 
rality  wherever  they  are  affixed  ;  and  as  plural  titles  are  affixed 
to  God,  it  is  plain  the  Bible  intended  to  teach  that  there  is  more 
than  atie  in  the  Godhead. 

Obj.  3.  «  The  term  <  plural  being'  conveys  no  definite  idea — 
is  a  contradiction  in  itself!  Phiral  means  more  than  one^  a  being 
is  but  one.  Now  can  any  thing  be  more  than  one  and  only  one  at 
the  same  time  !  The  proposition  involves  a  gross  absurdity!'* 
This  objection  will  be  best  answered  by  an  example  of  his  own. 
He  says  in  page  343 :  "  That  Aleim  is  sometimes  used  as 
a  plural  noun  T  shall  not  deny."  A  "  plural  noun  !"  Does  this 
contain  any  definite  idea !  Plural  means  more  than  one.  A  noun 
is  but  one.  Now  can  a  thing  be  more  than  one  and  only  one  at 
the  same  time!  «<  ()  yes:  the  noun  is  not  plural  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  it  is  singular."  Neither  is  God.  *«  The  noun  is 
singular  in  one  respect  and  plural  in  another,^*  We  say  the  same 
of  God.  He  is  one  in  essence,  plural  as  to  persons.  If  there  be 
no  contradiction  in  the  term  "  plural  noun,"  there  is  none  in  th« 
term  "  plural  being.'' 

Obj.  4.  "  Penn's  Arguments."  These  are  so  much  metaphfj" 


sical  nonsense  !  ! — unworthy  of  a  distinct  answer  !  He  first  begs 
the  question  by  supposing  the  three  <<perso7is"  to  be  three 
«  substances,'^  and  then  exercises  his  *<  vain  curiosity"  in  what 
he  knows  nothing  about.  If  any  one  wishes  to  see  his  sophistry 
more  cJearl}^,  let  them  substitute  for  the  terms  Father,  Son  and 
Spirit,  the  terms  Power,  Wisdom  and  Justice  or  any  other 
Divine  attributes  that  are  evidently  separate  and  distinct,  and 
then  say  :  *♦  These  three  are  either  so  many  distinct  substances , 
or  they  are  distinct  nothings,  ^c."  "  These  three  are  either 
Jiniteor  infinite.*^  **  These  three  are  either  one  or  many,  &c.  &c." 
and  the  conclusion  in  each  case  will  be  just  as  contrary  to 
Scripture,  to  common  sense  and  to  fact,  as  when  applied  to  the 
Trinity.  One  thing  only  I  would  mention — He  says  :  "  Unless 
the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  three  distinct  nothings,  they 
must  be  three  distinct  substances,  and  consequently  three  dis- 
tinct Gods,^^  Now,  as  Penn  did  not  hold  tliem  to  be  three  dis- 
tinct *•  substances,'*  or  **  Gods,"  it  is  evident  he  held  them  to 
be  three  distinct  nothings  ! 

Obj.  5.  <*  Paul  in  his  comment  on  Ex.  xix.  24,  makes  two 
Jehovahs,  one  on  earth,  the  other  in  heaven."  Answer.  We 
made  no  such  thing.  We  only  inferred  what  every  candid 
reader  of  the  text  and  context  must  infer,  that  there  are  two 
called  by  that  name.  And  as  we  know  there  is  but  one  Jehovah, 
to  reconcile  Scripture  with  itself  we  must  suppose  these  to  be 
two  persons  in  the  one  God.  The  text  however  will  speak  for 
itself.  «'  Moses  did  not  concern  himself  with  the  niceties  of  mo- 
dern grammarians  !"  This  assertion  is  not  only  a  dishonourable 
insinuation  against  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  (supposing 
Moses  to  have  written  out  of  his  own  brain,)  but  is  a  profane 
reflection  upcm  the  Holy  Spirit  who  directed  the  penman  by 
a  plenary  inspiration  !  If  the  Holy  Spirit  would  not  guard  him 
on  the  subject  of  the  Deity,  what  subject  would  be  of  sufficient 
importance  to  make  him  **  nice"  in  his  choice  of  words  ? 

Obj.  6.  <♦  Two  persons  are  as  great  an  absurdity  as  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead."  Here,  reader,  you  have  what  I  have 
long  asserted,  and  for  which  assertion  I  have  been  assailed  with 
such  an  outcry  of  <♦  uncharitableness" — the  denial  of  the  divi- 
mtyof  Christ?  <*  Amicus''  has  told  you,  there  is  no  divine  per- 
son distinct  from  the  Father ;  of  course  no  divine  pierson  to 
make  atonem.ent  to  the  Father ;  no  divine  person  to  intercede 
"with  the  Father.  \ou  have  no  atonement  but  what  has  been 
made  by  an  attribute,  an  office,  a  name,  a  nothing  ! !" 
unless  you  can  rest  on  an  atonement  made  by  a  mere  man,  by 

mortalflesh,*'  which  was  **  no  part  of  the  Deity  ! !"  How  dif- 
ferent this  from  the  language  of  the  Bible  !  Actsxx.  38,  "  Feed 
the  ohurch  of  God^  which  He  purchased  with  his  own  blood/' 


349 


i.  e.  which  Goff  purchased  with  his  hlood.  Again ;  1  John  iii. 
16,  «*  Herein  perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  that  he  laid  dovvn/tis 
life  for  us."  And  again ;  1  Cor.  ii.  8,  « They  crucified  the 
Lord  of  Glory," — not  a  mere  man,  not  mortal  flesh,"  but 
a  Dnine  person  ; — a  pers(m  too  who  was  not  the  Father,  nor 
the  Spirit,  but  the  Son,  one  separate  from  both.  What  non- 
sense would  vou  make  of  these  passages:  «  Feed  the  church 
of  God  winch  a  man  purchased  with  his  blood."  Herein  per- 
ceive we  the  love  of  God  that  a  man  laid  down  his  life  for  us," 
&c.  Thus,  Christians,  they  have  taken  away  your  Saviour. 
You  have  no  atonement  but  what  a  man  could  make  ;  no  righte- 
ousness but  what  a  creature  who  owed  obedience  for  himself  could 
procure ; — no  intercessor  but  a  man  who  cannot  be  either  omni- 
present, omniscient,  or  omnipotent  to  save.  Moreover,  the 
Lord  hath  said,  Cursed  is  the  man  that  trusteth  in  man." 
See,  therefore,  that  you  never  trust"  in  such  a  Saviour !  They 
have  made  a  great  noise  about  *<  Christ"  and  the  «*  Holy  Spi- 
rit," but  you  now  see  that  they  deny  the  very  existence  of  both 
Son  and  Spirit ! — or  which  is  the  same  thing,  reduce  the  Son  to 
a  mere  man^  and  the  Spirit  to  a  mere  name,  or  as  Penn  calls  it, 
a  mere  *<  nothing ! !" 

I  have  yet  hardly  commenced  the  direct  arguments  for  the 
Trinity,  and  intended  to  have  introduced  a  few  more  into  this 
number ;  but  as  I  do  not  wish  to  impose  upon  the  editor  by  oc- 
cupying a  whole  side  of  his  paper,  I  will  close  my  remarks  at 
present  by  whispering  in  the  reader's  ear  that  system  of  doc- 
trine which  you  are  fast  evolving,  and  which  will  ere  long  fully 
appear. 

1.  You  hold  that  there  is  but  one  person  in  the  Godhead  :  that 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  only  attributes  or  oflSces  of  the  Fa- 
ther. 2.  That  the  whole  divine  nature,  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Ghost  was  united  to  the  man  Jesus.  That  he  was  honoured  by 
a  particular  indwelling  of  the  divinity,  and  therefore  called 
Divine  ;  but  that  so  far  as  he  is  distinct  from  the  Father,  Jesus 
Christ  is  sicreature^  a  mere  man.  3.  That  there  is  no  wrath  in 
God,  no  vindicatory  justice 9  of  course  no  need  of  an  atonement 
or  satisfaction  for  sin.  That  the  word  "  atonement"  means 
simply  reconciliation^  or  the  removal  of  hostility  on  our  part. 
That  «  remission  of  sins"  means  nothing  more  than  removing 
moral  pollution  or  destroying  the  power  of  sin. 

4.  That  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  mere  influence  from  God,  called 
divine,  because  coming  from  God.  What  you  understand  by  in- 
tercession,  is  simply  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  our  hearts,  &c. 
&c.  &c.  This  1  have  little  doubt  is  substantially  your  scheme, 
80  far  as  you  have  any  scheme.  In  other  words,  you  arc  Sabel- 


350 


lians; — you  deny  the  personality  and  divinity  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit; — you  reject  the  atonement,  justification  by  vicarious 
righteousness,  and  every  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 

As  1  have  now  shown  that  God  is  SLphiral  Being,  I  will  here- 
after, with  leave  of  Providence,  show  that  he  is  a  Triune  Being. 

PAUL. 


Seventh-day^  Sth  mo,  10,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXIIL 

My  opponent  informs  us,  that  «  Christianity  is  distinguish- 
ed from  Polytheism  by  the  belief  of  one  God."  He  might  have 
added,  it  is  distinguished  from  Tritheism  or  Trinitarian- 
ism  by  the  same  belief!  The  doctrine  of  **  three  distinct  and 
separate  persons  in  the  Godhead" — of  "  three  distinct  eternal 
Spirits" — of  "  three  distinct  intelligent  hypostases,  each  hav- 
ing his  own  distinct  intelligent  nature,"  is  so  palpably  1'rithe- 
isM,  that  it  needs  no  demonstration.  Even  the  <»  Jews,  Ma- 
hometans, and  deists,"  dark  as  they  may  be  in  religion,  have 
yet  too  much  light  to  embrace  it.  That  the  "  Jews"  ever  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  «  Trinity,"  is  a  slander  against  them  and  all 
the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament ! 

*«  I  have  frequently  charged  you  with  denying  every  pecu- 
liar doctrine  of  the  Gospel."  That  "  Paul"  has  frequently 
so  charged  us  is  true,  and  much  too  true  to  allow  him  any  claim 
to  the  character  of  a  candid  antagonist !  It  has  evidently  been 
his  aim,  from  the  beginning  of  the  present  controversy,  to  vili- 
fy and  defame  us.  1  think  I  am  safe  in  saying,  that  so  much 
calumny  and  detraction  has  not  issued  from  any  one  pen  within 
the  last  century,  as  "Paul"  has  uttered  against  us  ! !  Happily 
for  the  society  I  advocate,  its  character  and  religious  sentiments 
arc  so  generally  known,  that  in  most  cases,  the  public  are  pre- 
pared to  attribute  his  aspersions  to  their  proper  cause. — Is  not 
a  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  the  Saviour,  Redeemer, 
and  Mediator,  the  only  means  of  salvation  ; — in  the  divine  in- 
spiration of  the  Apostles,  the  authenticity  of  the  sacred  wri- 
tings, the  necessity  of  faith,  repentance,  the  new  birth  ;  of 
righteousness,  sanctification  and  redemption  through  Christ. — 
I  say,  are  not  these  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  are 
they  not  fundamental  principles  of  our  society  ?  If  they  are, 
how  can  my  opponent  venture  to  charge  us  with  denying 
every  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  ?"  That  his  malice  should 
so  far  outrun  his  judgment,  indicates  a  loss  of  sight!  If  we  do 
^ll^ut  touch  some  men's  interest,  it  seems  to  blind  them  to  every 


351 


thing  else.  This  is  one  of  the  consequences  of  a  mercenary  mi- 
nistry ! — <*  J  thousand  dollars  a  year^*  is  sufficient  to  bribe  some 
men,  to  publish  falselioods  so  gross,  that  harilly  any  man  they 
meet  is  so  ignorant  as  to  believe  them  ! ! ! 

In  pursuance  of  my  design  to  answer  all  the  arguments  of 
my  Tritheistical  opponent,  1  will  now  proceed  to  notice : 

1st.  His  reply  to  my  assertion,  that  the  Trinitarians  are  so 
split  to  pieces,  and  widely  divided  on  this  incomprehensible  doc- 
trine, that  it  is  hard  to  tell  what  is  the  commonly  received  doc- 
trine, or  whether  there  be  any  such  !" — That  my  readers  might 
know  the  ground  of  this  assertion.  I  stated  the  doctrine  of  Wa- 
terland,  Howe,  Owen,  Pearson,  Bull,  Burnet,  W  allis,  Tillotson, 
and  Watts,  on  this  subject.    Between  the  five  first  named, 

Paul"  thinks  it  will  puzzle  common  readers  to  discover  much 
diversity  of  sentiment !  Who  he  means  by  common  readers,  he 
does  not  inform  us.  Such  I  presume  as  have  been  accustomed 
to  his  leading  strings ;  I  think  it  will  puzzle  those  who  dare  to 
think  for  themselves,  to  discover  much  similarity  in  the  doctrines 
of  the  authors  1  have  quoted.  Burnet  he  disowns,  calling  his 
doctrine,  though  it  be  as  clearly  Trinitarian  as  any  other  ♦*  an 
abomination.''  He  has  manifested  unusual  candor  in  admitting 
one  species  of  Trinitarianism  to  be  an  abomination,  although  it 
will  not  be  easy  to  show  why  it  is  more  abominable  than  the 
rest ! — Wallis,  Tillotson  and  Watts  he  does  not  object  to  ;  of 
course  he  allows  them  the  palm  of  orthodoxy  !  Let  us  now  com- 
pare these  orthodox  systems,  and  see  if  it  **  will  puzzle  com- 
mon readers  to  discover  much  diversity  of  sentiment  between 
them  !" 

W^aterland'*  would  be  an  Athanasian,  only  that  he  asserts 
the  three  Divine  persons  are  independent  upon  each  other,  and 
is  therefore  more  palpably  a  Tritheist,  than  even  the  Monk 
who  wrote  what  is  called  the  Athanasian  Creed  !  <*Howe"  is 
unequivocally  abpliever  m  three  Gods,  as  he  supposes  *»  there 
are  three  distinct  eternal  Spirits^  ov  distinct  inteWigcnt  hypostases, 
each  having  his  own  distinct  intelligent  nature." — «*  Owen,'' 

Pearson"  and  «  Bull"  differ  both  from  Waterland  and  Howe — 
from  Waterland,  in  that  they  make  the  Son  and  H(»ly  Spirit 
dependent  on  the  Father,  as  the  stream  on  the  fountain — from 

Howe,"  in  that  they  do  not  make  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost  three  distinct  eternal  Spirits,  but  three  distinct  some- 
things:  not  separated  nor  separable  from  the  divinity,  but  ex- 
isting in  it.  <*  Wallis"  and  ^<  Tillotson,"  differ  widely  from 
them  all,  as  they  believe  the  distinction  between  the  three  per- 
sons is  only  modal,  "Watts,"  with  respect  to  the  divine  na- 
ture and  its  manifestation  in  the  flesh,  came  nearer  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture  than  any  of  them  !  He  maintained,  that  there 


3^2 

ts  "one  Supreme  God  dwelling  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ— 
that  the  divine  Logos  was  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  the  divine  Fower.^*  But  he  differed  from  the  Athana- 
sians  very  widely  on  the  subject  of  the  human  nature,  or  flesh 
born  of  the  virgin  Mary ;  this  he  supposed  to  have  existed  the 
Jirst  of  all  creatures  ! 

Now,  1  think  our  readers  must  be  very  itncommoTt  indeed,  if 
they  can  reconcile  these  schemes  !  And  as  **  Paul''  has  admit- 
ted that  eight  out  of  the  nine  Trinitarians,  whose  schemes  have 
been  exhibited,  are  orthodox,  my  position  remains  untouched. 

The  Trinitarians  are  so  split  to  pieces,  and  widely  divided  on 
this  incomprehensible  doctrine,  that  it  is  hard  to  know  what  are 
the  commonly  received  notions  on  this  subject !" 

2d.  His  remarks  on  the  statement  1  made  concerning  the 
unscriptural  terms  used  by  Trinitarians.  In  a  former  essay.  I 
gave  some  account  of  the  first  invention  of  the  terms  Trini- 
ty,"— three  persons  in  one  God,  &c.  and  by  the  finger  of  au- 
thentic history,  pointed  to  the  **  deplorable  consequences"  of 
their  introduction  into  the  church  ! — I  showed  that  these  terms 
were  not  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  writings — that  they  were 
the  contrivance  of  fallible  men — the  work  of  Anti  christ.  I 
argued,  and  I  think  fairly,  that  as  they  were  never  dictated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  ought  to  be  rejected  ! — especially  by  those 
who  believe  the  Scriptures  to  be  our  07tly  rule.  These  objec- 
tions my  opponent  has  the  effrontery  to  call  «  puerile." — So 
then,  it  is  puerile  to  make  the  Bible  our  only  rule — it  is  quite 
boyish  to  confine  ourselves  on  doctrinal  subjects  to  the  language 
of  divine  inspiration.  The  impiety  and  inconsistency  of  such  a 
sentiment  from  the  pen  of  my  opponent,  will  not,  1  am  per- 
suaded, escape  the  observation  of  "  common  readers." 

But,  says  Paul,"  "  we  are  not  disputing  about  the  term 
[Trinity,]  but  about  the  doctrine.  The  term  is  a  very  happy 
one  to  express  the  three-one  God  !  !  Refute  the  doctrine,  and  we 
will  renounce  the  term."  But  suppose  there  be  no  such  God? 
how  then  ?  This  is  the  point  in  contraversy.  Prove  the  exist- 
ence of  a  compounded  Deity,,  and  we  will  not  refuse  the  term. 
But  if  it  be  impossible  that  an  infinite^  omnipresent  Being  can  be 
divided  into  parts,  then  the  doctrine  falls  to  the  ground,  and  the 
term  ought  to  fall  with  it,  as  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose  that 
the  doctrine  expressed  by  that  term,  ever  entered  the  minds  of 
the  inspired  penmen  ;  so  to  rc/iile  it,  will,  I  humbly  believe,  be 
no  difficult  task.  A  man  must  lay  aside  his  reason  before  he 
can  believe  it — he  must  reject  the  Scriptures,  as  the  only  rule, 
before  he  can  consistently  tolerate  it — he  must  have  many  es- 
sentials of  a  genuine  papist,  in  order  to  swallow  it.  Transub- 
stantiation  can  be  better  defended  by  Scripture  and  reason, 


353 


than  the  vulgar  doctrine  of  "  three  persons  in  one  God." — As 
to  "  Paul's"  renunciation  of  these  terras,  it  can  hardly  be  ex- 
pected whilst  priestcraft  and  popery  are  prominent  parts  of  his 
scheme  ! ! 

3rd.  That  the  term  "  Trinity"  was  invented  when  the  church 
had  made  great  advances  into  the  apostacy,  **  Paul"  denies ! 
but  in  so  d(ung  he  denies  the  clear  evidence  of  all  ecclesiastical 
history.  In  a  preceding  number  1  quoted  Mosheim  to  prove 
ray  position,  and  if  it  were  necessary,  could  easily  produce 
abundant  testimony  further  to  corroborate  it.  The  other  un- 
scriptural  terms  used  by  Trinitarians,  he  says,  were  invented 
by  men  who  found  them  <*  the  only  contrivances,  by  which  they 
could  defeat  and  baffle  their  subtle  foes."  Now  how  could  my 
opponent  so  effectually  vilify  the  scriptures,  or  cast  a  greater 
odium  on  divine  inspiration,  than  by  asserting,  that  these  un- 
scriptural  terms  '*  were  the  only  means,  by  which  the  subtle 
foes  of  Cliristianity  could  be  defeated  and  baffled  ?" — Was  God 
incompetent  to  carry  on  his  own  work  ? — or,  had  the  Apostles 
no  occasion  to  defend  our  Lord'»  divinity  ?  Let  my  readers  con- 
sult 1  John  ii.  22,  23.  Jude  4,  and  they  will  find  that  some  in 
the  Apostles  days  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ! — But  he  will 
not  find  the  inspired  penmen  making  use  of  the  terms  **  Trini- 
ty"— «« three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  &c."  to  refute  them  ! — 
He  will  find  them  using  a  very  different  language  !  a  language 
much  more  applicable  to  some  wiio  defend  these  absurd  terms-^ 
«  Woe  unto  them,  for  they  have  gone  in  the  way  of  Cain,  (a  per- 
secutor of  his  brother,)  and  have  run  greedily  for  a  reward  after 
the  error  of  Balaam,  (who  wanted  money  for  preaching)  and  pe- 
rished (lost  the  life  of  Christianity)  in  the  gain-saying  of  Core,^^-^ 

having  not  the  spirit,"  (but  saying  that  the  literal  and  lo- 
gical meaning  of  the  Scriptures  are  our  only  rule.)  See  Jude 
i.  11,  19. 

4th.  «*Paul"  tells  us  that  creeds  were  invented  to  tie  up 
heretics  to  truth.'*  A  miserable  invention  truly  ! — as  useless  in 
practice  as  it  was  Anti-christian  in  principle ! — Heretics  first 
invented  them,  and  a  wide  spread  heresy  w  as  the  result ! 

5th.  In  reply  to  my  quotation  from  Mosheim,  where  he  says  : 
"the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God"  had  happily  escap- 
ed the  vain  cnriositij  of  human  rcsearciies  during  the  first  three 
centuries.-'  «  Paul"  acknowledges  that  "  the  controversy  did 
•arise  from  vain  curiosity,  not  of  Chnstians,  however,  but  of  Arius 
and  others  ;  for  had  not  heretics  begun  to  speculate  on  this  sub- 
ject, the  orthodox  would  have  invented  no  terms  to  prevent 
similar  curiosity  in  future."  That  the  <«  invention  of  terms" 
should  prevent  curiosity,'^  is  a  very  curious  notion.  The  history 
of  the  new-fangled  terms  in  the  church,  the  extensive  schisms 


354 


they  have  engendered,  the  animosities  they  have  excited,  the 
wars,  and  bloodshed,  and  persecution  they  have  caused,  suffi- 
ciently mark  their  origin — shew  them  to  be  tlie  work  of  Anti- 
christ, and  eminently  calculated  to  excite  vain  curiosittf  !  and 
if  it  be  true  that  this  curiosity  did  not  originate  with  Christians, 
then  the  orthodox  bishop  of  Alexandria  w  as  no  Christian.  "  So- 
crates," the  ecclesiastical  historian,  informs  us  that  "  the  dis- 
pute arose  with  this  bishop,  who  discoursing  one  da>  too  curious- 
ly concerning  the  doctrine  of  Trinity  in  Unity  before  the  clergy, 
Arius  opposed  him,  and  hence  arose  the  Arian  controversy  ! ! ! 

Theodoret"  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  lib.  iv.  chap.  1,  con- 
firms this  sentiment,  as  does  «  Constantine"  in  his  letter  to 
Alexander  and  Arius ! 

6th.  But  "  Paui."  not  only  unchristians  the  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria, but  himself  and  his  tritheistical  brethren  also ! — as  will 
appear  from  the  following  sentence:  «rea^  Christians  never 
feel  justified  in  indulging  any  curiosity  on  the  subject." — Now 
there  is  no  sect  who  have  indulged  juore  curiosity  on  the  subject 
than  Trinitarians ! — as  will  partly  appear  from  the  opinions 
of  Waterland,  Howe,  Owen,  Pearson,  Bull,  Burnet,  Wal- 
lis  and  others,  as  stated  by  Amicus, — and  further  by  the 
anxiety  which  my  opponent  has  manifested,  to  exhibit  the  fruit 
of  his  own  vain  curiosity  in  the  present  discussion ;  like  a  bra- 
vado repeatedly  daring  us  to  appear  before  the  public  against 
him  ! ! ! — Consequently  Trinitarians  are  not  *<  real  Christians.^' 
Their  precise  species  1  will  leave  to  *«Paui."  to  define  !  One 
thing,  however,  may  truly  be  said  of  them,  they  do  not  float 
about  between  the  Scylla  of  Arianism  and  the  Charybdis  of 
Socinianism,"  they  have  fairly  landed  on  the  shores  of  Tui- 
THEiSM !  A  land  which,  from  its  first  discovery,  has  produced 
more  fruits  of  persecution  and  fanatical  intolerance,  than  any 
other  that  can  be  pointed  to,  on  the  religious  atlas  ! ! ! 

7th.  To  the  incomprehensible  and  contradictory  nature  of  my 
opponent's  scheme,  which  1  alledged  as  objections  to  it,  "  Paul" 
says  :  Does"  Amicus  never  talk  of  things  he  does  not  fully  com- 
prehend ?  Does  he  find  no  mysteries  in  medicine  ?  Does  he 
know  any  thing  more  about  fever  than  a  few  of  its  properties, 
causes  and  effects,  &c," — Answer.  To  know  the  properties,  causes 
and  effects,  of  any  thing,  is  good  ground  to  believe  in  its  ex- 
istence! When  «  Paul"  can  give  as  good  reasons  to  believe 
that  the  infinite,  omnipresent  JEHOVAH  is  a  compound  Being, 
consisting  of  three  self-existent,  independent,  immutable,  om- 
nipotent, eternal  persons,  finite  or  infinite,  which  he  pleases, 
then  I  will  embrace  Tritheism  ! — until  then  he  must  excuse  me 
if  I  remain  a  believer  in  only  one  God  ! ! !  That  the  doctrine 
of  the   Trinity,'*  as  expressed  in  what  is  called  "  the  Atha- 


365 


nasian  creed,"  involves  contradictory  propositions,  is  certain, 
and  Amicus  has  been  taught  to  beiieve,  that  of  two  contradic- 
tory propositions  both  cannot  be  true  ! 

Sth.  «*  Paujl"  tells  us,  that  as  he  «  writes  for  plain  English 
people,  he  will  not  enter  into  a  learned  criticism  on  the  Hebrew 
word  <  Elohim,'  which  few  could  understand."  After  introducing 
the  subject  himself,  and  occupying  a  large  portion  of  two  essays 
with  borrowed  matter  to  enforce  his  views,  he  now  begins  to 
feel  great  delicacy  for  his  unlearned  readers  !  It  does  not,  how- 
ever, require  much  learning  to  perceive  that  he  has  other  rea- 
sons for  avoiding  the  argument !  Delicacy  is  not  a  sin  that  he 
need  fear  to  be  charged  with.  To  use  his  own  language,  This 
is  a  very  convenient  way  of  getting  over  an  argument  he  cannot 
refute ! ! !" 

But  our  translators  render  the  word  <  Elohim'  Gods,  two 
hundred  times."  True,  and  they  render  it  God  many  hundred 
times  !  and  can  there  be  a  stronger  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
my  assertion,  that  the  use  of  this  word  both  as  a  singular  and 
plural  noun  is  an  idiom,  an  irregularity  of  the  language.  Ac- 
cording to  Paul's"  logic,  Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Zido- 
nians,  and  Baalberith  the  idol  of  the  Shechemites  are  plural 
beings,  a  kind  of  Trinities! — Can  any  thing  be  more  absurd f 

Many  words  are  used  with  tlie  plural  termination  in  Hebrew, 
which  we  are  accustomed  to  express  in  the  singular.  Thus  in 
Ps£(Im  xi.  7,  "  righteousness  is  put  in  the  plural."  For  the  Lord 
loveth  righteousnesses  (Zedakoth,)  literally  righteousnes- 
ses." Many  examples  of  this  kind  could  be  produced  if  neces- 
sary, to  show  that  no  reliance  ought  to  be  placed  upon  «  PaulV 
whimsical  theory  grounded  on  Hebrew  anomalies. 

«  Paul"  thinks  the  text,  Prov.  ix.  10,  proves  that  God  is  a 
<^  plural  Being,"  and  that  the  term  **  holy"  refers  to  God !  He 
gives  us  no  authority  for  this  opinion,  but  his  own  ;  which  from 
his  ignorance  of  the  original,  manifested  in  a  number  of  his 
remarks,  we  cannot  rely  on.  Though  king  James's  bishops  some- 
times blundered  in  their  attempts  at  translation,  they  under- 
stood the  Hebrew  too  well,  to  translate  this  text  to  suit  my  oppo- 
nent !  The  true  meaning  of  the  original  would  be  better  ren- 
dered thus  :  «  the  fear  of  the  Lord  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom, 
and  the  knowledge  of  the  saints  is  understanding."  <*The 
knowledge  that  begins  with  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  ends  in 
making  men  holy,  truly  deserves  to  be  called  «  understanding." 

But  in  quoting  Hosea  xi.  12,  (as  it  is  in  our  translation)  why 
did  not  our  wily  disputant  go  back  three  verses  in  the  same 
chapter  ?  He  would  have  seen  the  term  (Kadosh)  "  Holy  One," 
applied  in  the  singular  to  the  Divine  Being,  which,  to  suit  his 
own  purpose,  he,  in  the  12th  verse,  translates    holy  ones," 


356 


but  which  the  betkr  learned  translators  have  very  properly  ren- 
dered **  saints."  The  meaning  of  the  original  is,  **  Ephraim 
compasseth  me  about  with  lies,  and  the  house  of  Israel  with 
deceit,  but  Judah  yet  has  power  with  God,  and  is  yet  reckoned 
among  saintsJ'  I'hough  **  Paul,"  in  quoting  this  passage,  has 
failed  in  his  object,  yet  he  has  plainly  proved  that  his  notions 
of  the  original  are  all  borrowed  from  Trinitarians,  and  of  course 
are  unworthy  of  any  credit  in  the  present  controversy.  If  he  will 
please  to  get  somebody  to  look  for  him  in  the  original  Hebrew 
Bible,  he  will  find  there  is  but  eleven  verses  in  the  xith  chapter. 
His  quotation  is  in  fact  the  1st  verse  of  the  xiith  chapter  !  If, 
out  of  near  fifty  instances,  where  (Kadosh)  holy,  or  holy  ones,  oc- 
curs as  a  noun  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  a  few  times  put  in  the 
plural,  what  then  ?  He  must  have  wonderful  discernment  that 
can  find  in  this  circumstance  a  **  Trinity  ! !  !" 

The  term  **  Holy  One,"  as  it  occurs  in  Psalm  xvi.  10,  is 
generally  admitted  to  apply  to  Christ — it  is  so  applied  by  the 
Apostle,  Acts  ii.  27,  and  yet  this  same  term  has  the  plural 
form  in  the  original,  <*  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  the  grave, 
nor  suffer  thy  Holy  One,^'  (chasideycha,)  thy  holy  or  sanctified 
ones,  "  to  see  corruption."  Now,  how  can  *«  Paul"  account 
for  this  ?  Is  there  a  *«  trinity"  in  Christ  also? — if  my  opponent 
replies  in  the  aflirmative,  as  William  Penn  says,  "  the  three 
persons  will  soon  increase  to  nine;  if  in  the  negative,  his  whole 
nieory  built  upon  Hebrew  anomalies,  falls  to  the  ground  ! 
In  reply  to  William  Penn's  arguments,  Paul"  calls  them 
metaphysical  nonsense" — unworthy  of  a  distinct  answer  !  !" 
This  is  an  easy  way  of  getting  over  unanswerable  arguments  ! 
Now,  in  order  to  prove  Penn*s  arguments  metaphysical  nr»n- 
sense,"  let  Paul"  answer  these  plain  questions  :  not  by  his 
own  nonsense,  but  candidly  and  jdainly.  Are  the  three  persons 
that  constitute  his  triune  God"  distinct  and  separate  substan- 
ces or  not  I"  If  they  are  not  substances,  what  are  they  ?  and  are 
ihey  finite  or  infinite?  He  tells  us,  Penn  knows  nothing  of  his 
subject." — Paul"  will  now  have  an  opportunity  of  showing 
what  he  knows  of  it ;  or  whether,  like  Dr.  Miller,"  he  knows 
nothing  about  it — not  even  so  much  as  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
he  uses  ! ! ! 

«  Paul"  endeavours  to  alarm  his  readers  by  telling  them, 
that  unless  God  is  divided  into  three  parts,  they  can  have  no 
Saviour !  Now  the  Scriptures  tell  us  plainly,  that  God  the  Holy 
One  is  our  Saviour !  "  I  am  Jehovah,  beside  me  there  is  no  Sa- 
viour." Isaiah  xlii.  11.  The  great  difference  between  us,  is, 
that  <*  Paul"  makes  one  third  part  of  the  Deity  *^  a  Saviour ;" 
we  ascribe  salvation  to  an  undivided  Deity — to  <^  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh" — to    God  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 


357 


liiinsell  !"  to  "  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour  !"  His  followers 
have  much  more  cause  of  alarm,  to  see  their  benighted  shep- 
herd exerting  all  his  influence  to  lead  them  into  the  dark  re- 
gions of  Tritheism,  **  the  land  of  darkness  and  the  shadow  of 
death,"  of  lifeless  forms,  and  inefficient  ceremonies  ! 

AMICUS. 

Saturday^  August  17,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXIIl.* 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

*•  And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another 
Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever  ;  even  the  Spirit 
of  truth.^^  John  xiv.  16. 

From  the  arguments  advanced  in  former  numbers,  it  will  be 
evident  to  every  unprejudiced  and  humble  inquirer  after  truth, 
that  there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Deity. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  show,  that  this  plurality  is  a  Trinity, 
consisting  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  Three  persons  in  One 
God,  1st.  John  xiv.  26,  "  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name.  He  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  what- 
soever /have  said  unto  you." 

This  text,  which  we  suppose  "  Amicus"  w  ill  allow  to  be 
genuine,  affords  a  clear  and  convincing  proof  of  the  truth  of 
the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend,  and  is  amply  sufficient  of 
itself,  to  withstand  the  whole  battery  of  Socinian  objections. 

The  first  person  mentioned,  is  the  Comforter,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
whom  the  Father  should  send  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  whose 
office  it  should  be,  to  console  the  disciples  of  Jesus  during  his 
absence — to  teach  them  all  things — and  to  bring  to  their  re- 
membrance whatsoever  they  had  heard  from  the  lips  of  their 
Divine  instructer.  Now,  can  it  be  said  of  any  thing  which  is 
not  a  person — He  shall  teach — He  shall  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance — whom  the  Father  will  send?  He  mustsurelv  be 
a  person  who  is  sent — who  teacheth — who  is  a  Comforter,  and  a 
Renumhrancer, 

The  second  person'm  the  text  is  denominated  the  Father,  who 
was  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  name  of  Christ. 
He  who  sends  another,  must  be  a  distinct  person  from  the  one 

♦This  and  the  two  succeeding  numbers  were  written  by  another  hand. 


358 


wFio  is  sent;  but  the  Father  sends  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  must 
therefore  be  distinct,  and  as  they  cannot  be  distinct  nothings," 
they  must  be  distinct  j?mons. 

The  third  person  spoken  of  in  this  passage,  is  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christi  in  whose  name  the  Father  should  send  the  Holy  Ghost. 
He  must  be  ^person  in  whose  name  another  is  sent,  and  he  must 
also  be  distinct  from  the  other  two,  (i.  e.  from  the  sender,  and 
the  one  sent.)  No  language  could  possibly  more  clearly  con- 
vey the  idea  of  three  distinct  agents,  than  does  this  text ;  and  he 
must  have  a  very  simple  mind  indeed,  who  can  porceive  but 
one.  We  must  either  acknowledge  that  there  are  three  persons 
spoken  of  in  this  text,  or  we  must  maintain  that  no  person  is 
mentioned,  for  it  is  equally  plain  that  there  are  three,  as  that 
there  is  one. 

In  discussing  this  passage,  I  have  dwelt  particulai*ly  on  the 
distinct  personality  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  because  it 
is  only  necessary  to  prove  that  three  persons  are  mentioned,  to 
establish  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  fur  you  have  already  ac- 
knowledged the  Divinity  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

2d.  Another  convincing  argument  may  be  deduced  from  the 
baptism  of  our  Saviour,  as  recorded  in  the  3d  of  Matthew,  16 
and  17  verses  :  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,  and  to  !  the  heavens  were  open- 
ed upon  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a 
dove,  and  lighting  upon  him;  and  to  J  a  voice  from  heaven, 
saying,  this  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  /  am  well  pleased." 
The  interjection,  « lo  !"  which  here  occurs  twice,  is  used  to  de- 
note something  remarkable  and  worthy  of  special  attention.  In 
this  text,  as  in  the  former  one,  it  is  evident  that  there  are  three 
distinct  agents,  to  each  of  whom  a  distinct  act  is  ascribed.  Jesus 
is  coming  out  of  the  water — the  Father  speaks  from  heaven — 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  descends  in  the  appearance  of  a  dove,  and 
alights  on  Christ.  If  this  passage  does  not  teach  the  doctrine 
of  three  persons  in  the  divine  nature,  it  teaches  nothing,  and 
is  entirely  without  meaning.  Amicus"  censures  us  for  not 
being  content  with  the  language  of  Scripture  in  expressing  our 
ideas  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  intimates  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  been  sufficiently  accurate  in  the  choice  of  words  by  which 
to  express  the  will  of  God.  Let  <^  Amicus"  now  adhere  to  his 
own  rule,  and  give  us  his  ideas  of  this  passage.  We  are  afraid 
he  will  be  obliged  to  remove  this  text  also  from  the  Word  of 
God  ;  or  perhaps  he  will  say,  « it  is  a  figure  of  speech" — "  a 
Greek  anomaly." 

I  would  here  beg  leave  to  propose  a  question  similar  to  one 
which  «  Amicus"  has  already  asked  :  If  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
not  intended  to  have  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  trinity  of  persons 


359 


jii  the  Deity,  would  he  have  used  language  so  obviously  calcu- 
lated to  inculcate  this  doctrine  ?  To  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
"  did  not  much  concern  himself  with  the  niceties  of  modern 
grammarians,"  would  dishonour  the  God  of  truth  ;  and  yet, 
such  in  effect  is  the  language  of  **  Amicus;"  for  did  not  *Moses, 
as  well  as  other  holy  men,  speak  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?  In  this  second  text,  (Matt.  iii.  16,  17,)  the  doctrine  of 
ihrte  persons  in  the  Deity,  is  more  clearly  asserted  than  in  John 
xiv.  26 ;  for,  in  addition,  there  are  the  appearance  of  a  dove, 
(representing  the  Holy  Spirit,)  and  the  voice  from  heaven  (pro- 
ceeding from  the  Father.)  *<  this  is  my  beloved  Son." 

Amicus"  may,  if  he  pleases,  again  ascribe  to  us  "gross 
and  carnal  conceptions,"  in  perceiving  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in  this  passage ;  but  he  must  excuse  us,  if  we  are  ob- 
stinate enough  to  prefer  the  plain  sense  of  Scripture  to  all  his 
refined  notions,  and  if  vve  should  venture  to  assert  that  our  op- 
ponent, after  having  acknowledged  the  divinity  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit,  will  never  be  able  to  persuade  the  people  of  God  to  re- 
ject the  doctrine  under  consideration,  to  embrace  his  unscriptu- 
ral  sentiment. 

3d.  1  he  form  used  in  Christian  baptism,  as  laid  down  by  our 
Lord  himself,  ccmstitutes  our  third  argument.  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,^^ 
This  language  is  very  emphatic,  and  expresses  the  idea  of  three 
persons  as  distinctly  as  words  can  express  it.  If  the  Father  is 
a  person,  (which  "Amicus"  will  not  deny,)  then  the  Son  also  is 
a  person,  and  consequently,  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  on  the  con- 
trary, if  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  not  persons,  then  the  Father  is 
not  a  person;  for  it  is  necessary  that  the  same  things  should  be 
understood  of  each;  namely,  their dmni^t/,  and  the  Christian's 
reliance  on  them  as  the  God  of  our  salvation. 

If  "  Amicus"  should  be  permitted  to  rejine  this  passage,  we 
conceive  it  would  read  thus  :  "  Go  ye  not,  therefore,  and  teach 
NOT  all  nations,  baptizing  them  not  in  the  name  of  God,  and 
of  *  mortal  flesh,'  and  of  a  divine  influence." 

We  rejoice  in  the  belief,  that  the  Christian  church  is  not  pre- 
pared to  adopt  a  creed  which  does  such  violence  and  dishonour 
to  the  Scriptures  of  truth. 

4th.  We  appeal  to  the  Apostolic  benediction,  in  proof  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  2  Cor.  xiii.  14.,  "  The  grace  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  be  with  you  all.  Amen."  The  observations 
which  I  have  already  made  on  the  three  preceding  texts,  are 
equally  applicable  to  this.  Each  of  the  sacred  persons  is  dis- 
tinctly mentioned,  and  an  appropriate  blessing  prayed  for  from 


360 


each — grace  from  the  Son — love  from  God  the  Father — communion 
from  the  Holy  Ghost 

The  only  difference  between  this  and  former  texts,  is,  that 
the  word  God  is  used,  instead  of  the  Father,  which  circumstance 
tends  to  strengthen  our  argument. 

5th.  There  are  few  texts  more  directly  opposed  to  the  opinion 
of  "  Amicus"  than  is  John  xvii.  5  ;  and  indeed  the  whole  of 
this  chapter :  And  now,  0  Father !  glorify  thou  me  with  thine 
own  self  with  the  glory  which  /  had  with  thee  before  the  world 
was^ 

Here  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  who  declares 
that  he  possessed  glory  with  the  Father,  before  the  world  was. 
Now,  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  the  «*  mortal  flesh"  had  no 
existence  four  thousand  years  after  the  world  was  created — 
it  could  not  then  be  mortal  flesh"  which  possessed  glory  with 
the  Father.  It  was  then  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  which 
was  with  the  Father,  and  possessed  glory  with  him  before  the 
world  was.  But  surely  he  is  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father, 
who  prays  to  the  Father  for  that  glory  which  he  had  with  him^ 
before  the  world  was,  (i.  e.  from  everlasting.)  If  the  divine 
nature  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  is  not  a  distinct  person  from,  the  Fa- 
ther, then  the  text  just  quoted  is  absurd  and  unintelligible  ;  but, 

by  keeping  this  distinction  always  in  view,  (not  only  this  pas- 
sage, but)  the  most  difficult  Scripture  passages,  relating  to 
Christ,  are  easily  solved." 

6th.  The  last  direct  passage  which  I  shall  at  present  adduce  in 
support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is,  1  John  v.  7,  «  For 
there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these  three  are  one."  This 
text  Amicus"  has  pronounced  «*  spurious  ;"  but  Christians 
will  not  be  disposed  to  expel  it  from  the  Bible  on  his  bare  asser- 
tion. This  passage  is  so  unequivocal  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  .of 
the  Trinity,  that  it  is  no  wonder  that  it  has  been  assailed  by  the 
enemies  of  truth — and  that  they  have  exerted  all  their  inge- 
nuity to  prove  it  an  interpolation. 

Amicus"  by  calling  it  «  spurious"  without  attempting  to 
prove  it  so,  is  merely  begging  the  question  ; — we  shall  there- 
fore put  him  to  the  trouble  of  bringing  forth  his  arguments 
against  its  authenticity,  before  we  think  it  incumbent  on  us  to 
step  forward  in  its  defence. 

If  WE  are  not  content  with  Scripture  terms,  «  Amicus'^  is 
not  content  with  Scripture  itself  ;  but  by  reiterating  tlie  So- 
cinian  cry  of  ^spurious!"  he  endeavours  to  expunge  a  part  of 
God's  Word  from  the  Bible.  Socinians  and  others  of  the  same 
stamp,  will  not  acknowledge  this  passage  as  genuine,  for  should 
they  do  so,  their  cause  would  be  lost. 


561 


We  advise  "  Amicus"  to  be  very  careful  how  lie  pronounces 
a  part  of  God's  Word  ♦<  spurious,"  lest  he  should  comuiit  that 
sin,  which  would  **  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life." 
(Rev.  xxii.  19.) 

The  toregoinj^  arguments  will  derive  additional  weight  in 
every  pious  mind,  from  other  doctrines  peculiar  to  the  Gospel — 
such  as — ilie  atonement  of  our  Saviour — his  intercession  with 
the  Father — and  his  being  appointed  by  the  Father  the  judge 
of  the  world — together  witli  the  oSice  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
the  regenerater^  comforter  and  sanctifier  of  God's  people.  From 
what  has  now  been  advanced  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  we  think  it  will  be  as  clear 
as  day  to  every  candid  mind,  that  this  foundation  of  the  Gos- 
pel." whic!i  Penn  calls  sandy,"  is  firmly  built  on  the  rock  of 
trurh,  and  that  it  is  in  no  danger  of  being  *<  shaken"  or  subverted 
by  the  feeble  assaults  of  its  foes.  It  has  trinmphantly  withstood 
the  repeated  attacks  of  the  enemy  of  souls  for  the  space  of 
eighteen  hundred  years — its  believers  and  advocates  are  constantly 
increasing — and  it  will  remain  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  when  the  tongues  and  pens  of  its  adver- 
saries are  heard  and  move  no  more. 

Before  closing  our  present  number,  we  shall  notice  a  few 
prominent  things  in  the  last  communication  of  "  Amicus." 

1.  His  abuse  Trinitarians,  He  calls  us  **  Tritheists,"  i.  e. 
worshippers  of  three  Gods, — He  accuses  us  of  •*  malice"— of 
"falsehood" — of  *<  self-interesi" — of  mercenary"  motives  in 
defending  the  truth — of  popery" — and  of  wilfully  *«  aiming 
from  the  beginning  of  the  present  controversy,  to  vilify  and  de- 
fame the  Society  of  Friends."  Tiiese  terms  of  reproach  and 
unjust  charges,  come  with  a  very  ill  grace  from  the  ?neefe,  the 
charitable  and  /ori7i^  Friend,  who  is  continually  complaining  of 
our  want  of  christian  love.  In  callina;  us  ^'  Tritheists,"  *'  Ami- 
cus" is  inconsistent  with  himself. — In  one  of  his  essays,  (page 
327,)  he  calls  •*  Wickliffe,  Luther,  Calvin,  Zuinglius,  Melanc- 
thon,  and  others,  faithful  sons  of  the  morning,^^  and  yet  those 
who  maintain  the  same  doctrines  with  those  reformers,  are 
sons  of  darkness, — drir/c" — "letter  learned  clergy."  Why 
did  not  "Amicus"  call  Luther  and  Calvin,  "Tritheists." 
Again,  "  Amicus"  calls  John  Newton  a  true  minister  of  Christ, 
(page  311,)  but  if  Newt(m  were  alive  now,  he  would  only  be 
"  a  mercenary  priest."  We  advise  our  opponent,  hereafter  to 
imitate  the  example  of  our  Reedemer,  "  who  w  hen  he  was 
reviled,  reviled  not  again,^^ 

2.  We  notice  the  misrepresentations  of"  Amicus."  His  whole 
drift  in  his  present  essays,  is  to  ndic?t/e  the  doctrine  of  the  Tri- 
nity, by  endeavouring  to  persuade  his  readers  that  we  bclierc 

46 


362 

in  the  existence  of  three  Gods,  To  this  purpose  lie  falsely  re- 
presents us  as  believing  that,  **  God  is  divided  in  three  parts,^^ — 
that there  are  three  persons  and  yet  but  one  person*'  in  the  Dei- 
tiff  (page  343.)  Now  we  deny  that  we  ever  believed,  ov  proj'es- 
sed  to  believe,  such  absurdities ;  and  we  hope  that  »*  Amicus,'* 
on  consideration,  will  be  ashamed  that  he  has  thus  misrepre- 
sented our  faith.  Here  we  will  humbly  answer  the  questions, 
which  "  Amicus,"  towards  the  close  of  his  last  communication, 
has  proposed.  We  believe  tliat  there  are  three  persons,  (not 
three  substances)  in  the  divine  nature  or  Godhead.  But  it  will 
be  asked,  "  What  are  those  persons?"  We  answer  :  This  is  the 
point  on  which  "  real  Christians  never  feel  justified  in  indulg- 
ing any  curiosity."  It  is  enough  for  us  that  the  Scriptures  plain- 
ly teach  tlie  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead  — we  do 
not  therefore  attempt  to  decide,  *♦  what  those  persons  are;'^ — or 
how  they  are  consistent  with  the  unity  of  Jehovah  ;  both  of 
Avhicb,  however,  we  firmly  believe. 

3.  The  equivocation  of  *•  Amicus.  He  frequently  makes  men- 
tion of  the  <*  divinity  of  Christ" — of  his  being  the  **  Saviour,^^ 
the  *«  Mediator,^^  the  <*  Redemer,"  the  "  Intercessor" — of  his 
<^  atonement,^*  &c.^but  he  takes  care  to  say  little  or  nothing 
with  respect  to  the  meaning  which  he  attaches  to  these  terms. 
We  request  "  Amicus"  to  tell  us  explicitly,  what  he  means,  and 
what  his  society  means  by  the  terms  just  mentioned. 

4.  We  notice  Amicus  '"  want  of  information.  He  still  per- 
sists in  denying  that  there  is  any  commonly  received  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity*  And  he  has  given  us  quotations  from  eight  or 
nine  individuals,  to  prove  that  all  the  Christian  world  disagree 
on  this  doctrine !! !  Admirable  logic!!!  Will  any  man  in  his 
senses  believe  that  nine  individuals  compose  the  vast  multitude 
of  Trinitarians  ?  If  "  Amicus"  can  believe  this,  one  would 
think  he  might  also  believe  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  if  it 
were  even  as  absurd  as  he  wishes  to  make  it  appear.  If  my  op- 
ponent has  a  desire  to  know  what  is  the  commonly  received  doc- 
trine, let  him  consult  the  «  Confessions  of  Faith"  of  tlie  Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians,  Independents,  Bapfists,  Congrega- 
tionalists,  Dutch  Reformed,  Methodists,  and  others,  and  he  will 
ftnd  that  they  all  express  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  nearly 
the  same  words.  Here  then  we  have  almost  the  whole  Christian 
Church,  who  agree  in  their  ideas  of  t  he  Trinity,  and  use  the 
same  forms  of  expression  ;  and  yet  "  Amicus"  thinks  (or  ap- 
pears to  think,)  that  there  is  no  commonly  received  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  Let  "  Amicus"  have  the  fairness  to  appeal  to  our 
Confessions  of  Faith,  and  not  attempt  to  mislead  his  readers  by 
quoting  individuals. 

5.  Amicus"  says :    That  the  Jews  ever  held  the  doctrine 


363 


of  the  Trinity,  is  a  slander  against  them,  and  all  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  TcstHiuent."  Now  men  as  learned  as  our  opponent, 
and  men  the  most  learned  m  the  Christian  world,  have  given 
quotations  from  the  most  ancient  Jewish  writings,  whieh  prove 
that  the  Jewish  raohic's  and  doctors,  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  believed  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  (See  Maurice's  In- 
dian Antiquities — Dr.  Allix's  reslimonies  of  the  Jewish  church, 
and  others).  That  the  modern  Jews  do  not  belirve  this  doctrine 
we  ^rant ;  but  let  »*  Amicus"  jirove  that  this  was  not  the  faith 
of  the  ancient  Jews.  PAUL. 


Seveiith-day,  Btk  mo.  24,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXIV. 

In  that  day  there  shall  be  One  Lord^  and  his  name  One,^'  Zech. 
xiv.  9.  *'  I  am  God  and  nut  man,  the  Holy  OJV'E  in  the  midst 
of  thee,^^  Hos.  xi.  9.  /  am  Jehovah  ;  beside  me  there  is  no  Sa- 
viour, Isa.  xlii.  11. 

Amicus  has  now  a  new  opponent  but  not  a  new  writer  to 
deal  with.  His  first  appearance  in  the  **  Repository,"  indicates 
more  talent  than  his  predecessor  had  any  claim  to.  I  hope  he 
may  manifest  more  candor.  It  is  painful  to  Amicus  to  expose 
the  disingenuousness  of  his  opponent — to  give,  as  I  did  in  my 
last  number,  the  evidence  of  wilful  misrepresentation.  With 
our  writings  in  his  hands,  his  gross  misstatement  of  our  doc- 
trines cannot  be  imputed  to  ignorance, 

Paul"  charges  me  witli  using  "  terms  of  reproach,"  and 
making  unjust  charges."  If  I  have  used  such  terms,  the  blame 
should  attach  to  those  who  have  fairly  earned  them.  The 
justness^  of  every  charge  preferred  against  my  opponent  and 
his  doctrines,  has,  I  think,  been  shewn.  My  assertions  have 
been  supported  by  authentic  documents,  or  proved  by  fair  in- 
duction. If  "  Paul"  think  otherwise,  and  will  point  out  a 
single  error  under  these  heads,  I  will  promise  to  give  him 
further  satisfaction.  I  will  either  prove  my  premises,  or  ac- 
knowledge my  mistake. 

It  is,  however,  cause  of  satisfaction  to  perceive  that  my  pre- 
sent opponent  thinks  itblamableto  use  <*  terms  of  reproach,'* 
and  to  make  <«  unjust  charges."  In  admitting  this  sentiment  he 
passes  a  very  severe  censure  on  his  forerunner ;  and  I  would 
gently  remind  him,  that  his  own  essay  is  not  immaculate  in  these 
respects.  I  will,  however,  do  him  the  justice  to  acknowledge 
that  while  his  address  has  more  argument,  it  has  less  abuse, 
than  those  of  his  predecessor. 


S6i, 

I  shall  hereafter  revert  to  his  proofs,  that  God  is  a  compound 
Being — in  other  words,  composed  of  **  three  distinct  and  se- 
parate persons,"  when,  I  think,  we  shall  see,  that  the  hum- 
ble inquirer  after  truth"  must  be  extreme!)'  **  prejudiced," 
before  he  can  embrace  a  doctrine  which  contradicts  our  reason, 
makes  language  useless,  opposes  the  views  of  the  inspired  pen- 
men, and  leaves  us  in  a  labyrinth  of  mystery  and  darkness  from 
which  the  Trinitarians  can  furnish  us  with  no  means  of  escapc^gAl 
In  every  well  conducted  argument,  the  parties  first  ascer-"' 
tain  the  precise  ideas  to  be  attached  to  the  terms  they  use.  If 
truth  is  their  object,  this  is  an  indispensable  preliminary.  In 
my  last  essay,  in  order  to  arrive  at  this  point,  1  requested 
"  Paul"  to  answer  some  questions  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
'persons  which  compose  ins  *«  triune  God,"  but  as  he  has  evaded 
a/it//  answer,  I  shall  have  to  seek  it  from  his  former  positions. 

My  first  query  was  ;  '*  Are  the  three  persons  that  constitute 
his  triune  God,  distinct  and  separate  substances  or  not?"  To 
this  question  he  replies  :  <*  We  believe  that  there  are  three  per- 
sons, not  three  substances  in  the  Godhead?" — "Not  three  sub- 
stances !" — then  the  **  three  persons"  in  their  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate capacity,  must  be  unsubstantial^  notreal,  mere  ideal  forms — 
subsisting  only  in  the  imagination  ! ! ! — What  blasphemy  does 
this  conclusion  involve !  Now  how  can  three  unsubstantial  persons , 
when  put  together,  or  rather  when  kept  distinct  and  separate, 
be  ONE  SUBSTANTIAL  BEING,  the  Creator  of  innumer- 
able worlds — the  Maker  and  Preserver  of  all  things?  The  idea 
is  preposterous ! — the  doctrine  is  absurd!!! — To  have  a  Sa- 
viour at  all,  he  must  be  a  real  substantial  Saviour. — If  he  be 
unreal  or  unsubstantial  he  can  be  no  Saviour! 

My  sec(md  and  third  queries  were  :  <*  If  the  three  persons 
are  no/ substances,  what  are  they?"  and  "Are  tliey  finite  or 
infinite.^  These  questions  he  evades  in  the  usual  way  with  Tri- 
nitarians, by  telling  us,  that  *<  this  is  the  point  on  which  real 
Christians  never  feel  justified  in  indulging  any  curiosity  !" — 
«  We  do  not  attempt  to  decide  what  those  persons  are  !"  This 
is  a  mere  shift  to  get  over  a  difficulty — to  evade  a  conclusion 
which  would  blast  their  scheme,  and  accelerate  the  downfall 
of  a  doctrine,  invented  by  men  who  had  lost  <*  the  power  of  god- 
liness," and  apostatized  from  Christ  the  true  and  living  Head 
of  his  spiritual  body,  the  church  ! 

But  I  would  ask  "Paul," — How  is  it  that  "  real  Chris- 
tians" begin  to  feel  a  check  to  their  curiosity  at  this  precise 
point? — Is  it  consistent  with  the  character  of  a  "  real  Chris- 
tian to  indulge  his  curiosity"  so  far  as  to  examine  into  the  nfl- 
hire  of  these  « three  persons,'*  and  induce  him  to  decide  that 
they  are  unsubstantial  $  and  yet  inconsistent  with  that  charac- 


365 


ler,  to  determine  whether  they  iire  finite  or  infinite? — Is  it  less 
criminal  to  determine  on  the  nattire  9  than  im  the  measure  of  their 
being? — Every  "unprejudiced"  and  rational  *» inquirer  after 
truth,"  must  perceive  that  the  objection  to  answer  my  query 
does  not  arise  from  any  scruple  of  conscience,  biit  from  a  con- 
viction tliat  to  answer  it,  either  way,  will  involve  them  in  dif- 
ficulty, from  which  they  cannot  be  extricated.  *«  Paul"  admits 
that  the  Deity  is  infinite.  If  therefore,  he  had  said,  the  three 
persons  which  compose  the  Deity  finite,  it  would  inevitably 
follow,  that  thvve  finite  persons  may  make  an  infinite  God  J — If 
he  had  said,  they  are  infinite,  then  every  one  would  see  that  he 
is  a  TRITHEIST— -a  believer  in  "  three  Gods  ! ! !"  In  the  first 
case  he  would  be  involved  in  a  palpable  absurdity — in  the  other 
in  idolatry  ! ! ! — Well  therefore,  may  my  opponent  endeavour 
under  the  cover  of  a  tender  conscience  to  escape  a  dilemma  so 
fatal  to  his  cause  !  ! ! 

But  though  **Paul"  is  now  very  tender  on  this  one  point, 
though  «'  he  will  not  [now]  attempt  to  decide  what  those  persons 
are,"  yet  it  is  strikingly  apparent,  that  this  tenderness  is  of  a  re- 
cent origin  !  In  his  xxxth  Letter,  p.  324,  he  tells  us,  the  per- 
son who  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  plain  of  Mamre,  (Gen.  xviii. 
1,)  to  whom  Abraham  prayed,  and  whom  he  addressed  as  the 
Jndge  of  all  the  earth,  w  ho  is  called  JEHOVAH  fourteen  times 
in  that  single  chapter,  is  spoken  of  in  chap.  xix.  verse  24,  as  a 
dis<ind;;crso?i  from  JEHOVAH  in  heaven  !  Ashe  stood  upon 
the  earth  and  called  down  fire  from  heaven  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  it  is  said — Then  JEHOVAH  rained  upon  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from  JEHOVAH  out  of  heaven." 
From  this  text  (which  from  his  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew,  he 
has  rendered  falsely)  he  draws  this  conclusion:  Either 
there  is  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  or  a  plurality  of 
Gods;" — "the  latter  suppf)sition,"  he  says,  is  an  absurdity 
and  impossibility — the  former  is  a  possibility  but  a  great  myste- 
ry I !  /" — He  might  have  said  with  as  much  truth,  "  a  great  in- 
consistency ! ! !" 

In  these  sentences  "  Paul"  has  told  us,  as  plainly  as  lan- 
guage can  tell  us,  that  the  persons  composing  his  «  triune  God," 
are  all  finite  persons/  Infinity  implies  immensity,  boundless- 
ness, without  limit.  But  one  of  "Paul's"  imaginary  persons 
can  stand  upon  this  little  globe — this  molehill,  and  call  down 
fire  from  the  other  in  heaven — somewhere  up  in  the  clouds  I 
suppose  ;  whether  from  within  the  atmospheric  rigion  or  not, 
he  does  not  inform  us  ! ! ! 

From  what  has  been  stated,  we  have  fairly  arrived  at  two 
conclusions; — as  I  think  cannot  be  denied.  The  first  is,  that 
the  three  persons  are  unsubstantial,  unreal, — they  are  «  not  three 


366 


substances*' — the  second  is  that  they  are  Jinite;  One  can  stand 
on  this  earth  and  call  down  fire  from  the  other  up  in  heaven  !  ! ! 
Can  tliere  be  greater  absurdities  ?  I  know  but  of  one  that  can 
})ossibly  be  deemed  so — and  that  is — that  these  three  unsubstan- 
tial, unreal,  finite,  limited  persons,  though  they  be  **  distinct  and 
separate,"  yet  theij  make  up  One  s£lf-existent,  indepen- 
dent,  IMMUTABLE,   ETERNAL,  OMNIPRESENT,  INDIVISIBLE, 

ALL-POWERFUL  GoD !  Admirable  logic  ! ! ! 

But  lest  some  of  our  readers,  from  a  superstitious  veneration 
for  our  present  translation  o{  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  from  amis- 
placed  confidence  in  the  statement  of  my  former  opponent, 
should  suppose,  that  the  text,  (Gen.  xix.  24,)  was  intended  by 
Moses  to  convey  the  absurd  idea  of  **  a  plurality  of  persons  in 
the  Godhead,"  1  will  briefly  observe,  that  the  original  conveys 
no  such  idea!  The  verse  io  which  the  word  Jehovah  occurs 
twice  as  aforesaid,  contains  what  is  called  by  grammarians 

An  apposition:" — hence,  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  under  the 
word  (Vaaish)  we  find  an  ethnach,  a  musical  point  having  the 
same  force  as  a  colon — the  true  reading,  therefore,  is  this:  *•  And 
JEHOVAH  caused  it  to  rain  upon  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  brim- 
stone and  fire  from  the  lieaven  of  JEHOVAH."  Neither  the 
anomalies  of  the  Hebrew  language,  nor  the  judgment  of  my 
former  opponent,  are  to  be  relied  on  in  the  present  discussion. 
1  say  the  anomalies  of  the  Hebrew,  for  the  Greek  writers  ne- 
ver use  a  plural  noun  as  a  name  of  the  Deity. 

The  term  <<  person,"  is  never  applied  to  the  Deity  in  the 
original  Scriptures  :  It  is  but  once  so  used  in  the  present  trans- 
lation of  them,  (Heb.  i.  3,)  and  there  it  is  falsely  rendered.  It 
seems  to  imply,  form,  dimensions,  limitation,  which  are  incom- 
patible with  just  views  of  the  Divine  nature.  It  is,  I  think,  a 
term  too  gross  and  carnal  to  apply  to  that  ineffable  Being,  whose 
presence  fills  the  boundless  regions  of  space:  in  whom  we 
live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being."  Acts  xvii.  28.  But  if  we 
allow  the  term  <«  person"  to  be  applied  to  the  Deity,  and  take 
the  most  approved  definition  of  it  given  by  "  Boethius,"  (who 
defended  what  is  called  the  Orthodox  Creed,)  to  wit :  an  in- 
dividual substance  of  a  rational  and  intelligent  nature,-*'  and  if  we 
also  allow  that  there  are  «  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,"  we 
fall  directly  into  TRITHEISM,  for  then  there  must  be  three 
individual  divine  substances,  each  haviug  a  rational  intelligent 
nature — of  course  THREE  GODS  !  !  !  But  my  opponent  says, 
they  are  «  not  three  substances,'* — he  therefore  rejects  the  defi- 
nition of  <^  Boethius,"  and  consequently  they  must  be  three  un- 
substantial, unreal,  imaginary  phantoms  / The  more  my 
opponent's  scheme  is  examined,  the  more  it  appears  like 
ATHElSM  disguised  !  Nevertheless,  I  am  far  from  supposing 


that  Trinitarians  generally  mean  to  worship  either  three  un 
substantial  imaginary  persons,  or  three  distinct  and  separate 
Gods ;  for  I  believe  that  many  of  them  do  not  see  the  necessary 
consequences  of  the  Trinitarian  scheme  ! 

Before  1  discuss  the  Scripture  passages  adduced  by  Paui/* 
as  proofs  of  liis  scheme,  1  will,  in  a  brief  manner,  state  our 
doctrine  of  the  DEIFY,  as  we  belicAe  it  is  revealed  in  the  Bi- 
ble, and  confirmed  by  the  evidences  of  truth  in  various  ways 
to  our  understanding. 

We  believe  **  there  is  but  one  God" — one  divine,  eternal, 
indivisible  Being,  omnipotent,  omnipresent,  and  omniscient ; 
the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  things  visible  and  invisible. 
We  believe  that  this  divine  Being,  in  boundless  mercy  to  man- 
kind, and  adapting  himself  to  the  circumstances  and  capacities 
of  his  children,  hath,  *«  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,'* 
revealed  himself  to  them.  To  the  primogenitors  of  the  human 
race  by  his  immediate  presence.  To  the  patriarchs,  prophets 
and  others,  sometimes  immediately,  sometimes  under  the  ap- 
pearance of  angels,  and  sometimes  in  the  form  of  men.  After 
about  four  thousand  years  from  the  creation,  we  believe  this 
same  divine  Being  was  super-eminently  manifested  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  by  mi- 
raculous conception — a  man,  approved  of  God  by  miracles, 
and  wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him,^^  Acts  ii.  22. 
And  lastly,  we  believe  that  this  same  God,  under  the  new  co- 
venant dispensation,  is  manifesting  himself  in  and  to  the  souls 
oi  his  rational  family,  wherever  scattered,  for  tlie  purpose  of 

convincing  them  of  sin,"  converting  them  to  himself,  and 
preparing  them  for  "  an  inheritance  incorruptible,  undefiled, 
and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven"  for  those  of 

every  kindred,  and  tongue  and  people,"  who  are  willing  to 
accept  the  offers  of  his  divine  love.  See  the  following  texts, 
Heb.  viii.  10,  11,  12;  1  Cor.  xii.  7  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  \> ;  2  Peter  iii. 
9 ;  Rev.  v.  9,  &c.  &c.  &c. 

And  though  we  believe  in  but  one  divine  Being,  yet  we  be- 
lieve in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  "  God,"  saith  the  Apostle,  **  was 
in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself."  2  Cor.  v.  19. 
This  text,  with  many  others  that  might  be  adduced,  give  us  a 
clear  and  consistent  idea  of  our  Lord's  divinity  ;  for  as  it  is  not 
possible  that  there  can  be  more  than  one  Divinity,  so  we  are 
taught  by  the  holy  penmen  to  believe,  that  God  in  Christ  is  the 
true  and  proper  divinity  of  Christ/  for  "in  Him  dwelt  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily" — or,  as  it  should  be  rendered, 
*<  substantially.'*  Col.  ii.  9.  «*For  HE,  whom  God  hath  sent, 
speaketh  the  words  of  God,  for  God  giveth  not  <he  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  him."  John  iii.  3*.    Accordingly,  in  him  all  the 


368 


attributes  of  the  Deity  were  manifested  !  The  omnipotent  crea- 
tive power  of  God,  in  the  multipiicatiun  of  the  loaves  and  fishes  ; 
in  restoring  the  blind,  the  lame,  and  the  withered  :  in  healing 
the  sick,  and  raising  the  dead  !  His  power  to  destroy^  in  blasting 
the  fruitless  fig-tree !  HIS  omniscience  in  penetrating  the  hid- 
den recesses  of  the  human  heart,  knowing  the  secret  thoughts 
of  those  about  him,  and  foreseeing  the  events  of  futurity  !  And 
the  love  and  mercy  of  God  were  eminently  manifested  in  Christ, 
by  a  glorious  display  of  actions  the  most  beneficent,  a  benevo- 
lence unparalleled — in  his  dying  moments  praying  for  his  perse- 
cutors, and  asking  forgiveness  for  those  who  put  him  to  tlie 
most  excruciating  death  !  !! 

Abstractedly  from  this  divinity,  we  believe,  according  to  the 
plainest  Scripture  testimony,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a 
man that  he  was  of  <*  the  seed  of  Abraham,"  Heb.  ii.  16  ; 
«  the  seed  of  David  Acts  xiii.  23.  Rom.  i.  3.  "  In  all  points 
tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin."  Heb.  iv.  15.  In  all 
things  made  like  his  brethren."  Heb.  ii.  17.  **  He  increased  in 
wisdom,  and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  man."  Luke 
ii.  52.  And  *<  though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience 
by  the  things  which  he  suffered."  Heb.  v.  8  All  which,  and 
abundant  other  Scripture  testimony  which  might  be  adduced, 
go  clearly  to  prove  this  point.  But  I  think  I  need  go  no  fur- 
ther, as  even  the  Athanasian  Creed  grants  it.  A  perfect  man 
of  a  reasonable  soul  and  human  flesh."    See  the  Creed. 

How  then  does  the  difficulty  arise  between  us  ?  Why,  our 
opponents  are  not  satisfied  with  this  Scripture  account !  they 
have  invented  the  term  **  Trinity" — they  have  contrived  a 
scheme  of  **  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,"  between  whom  they 
divide  the  divinity  ! — or  rather,  they  give  the  whole  of  it  to  each 
of  them! — either  of  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  impos- 
sible I  and  consequently  their  doctrine  is  absurd  ! 

Now,  if  my  opponent  wishes  to  convert  us  to  the  faith  of  the 
orthodox  Roman  Catholic  church,  of  the  fourth  and  subsequent 
centuries,  let  him  no  longer  hide  himself  in  mystery,  but  by  a 
luminous  explanation  of  his  faith,  convince  us  that  it  is  not 
**justly  chargeable"  with  error  and  absurdity.  « Nothing," 
says  Bishop  Watson,  has  contributed  more  to  tlie  propagation 
of  DEISM,  than  the  making  doctrines,  abhorrentfrom  reason, 
parts  of  the  Christian  system.  There  may  be  doctrines  above 
reason,  but  nothing  which  is  evidently  contrary  to  reason,  can 
ever  be  justly  considered  a  part  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion." 

I  will  now  proceed  to  notice  «  Paul's"  arguments  grounded 
on  Scripture  texts,  when  we  shall  see  whether  the  inspired 
penmen  were  Trinitarians  or  not.   That  the  divine  nature  is. 


369 

one  and  indivisible,  is  expressly  taiij^ht  by  our  Saviour  himself, 
from  whom  there  can  be  no  appeal  !  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spi- 
rit— or  whatever  other  terms,  such  as  •*  the  Comjorter/' — the 
*<  Unction  from  the  Holy  One,'^ — ♦*  The  Grace  of  God,^  &c.  used 
t  by  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles,  all  refer  us  to  the  one  divine 
Life,  Light,  Power,  and  Spirit,  which  is  GOD.  In  proof  of 
which,  1  will  adduce  the  following  passages  : 

1st.  Jesus  saith,  "  Have  /  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and 
yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip?  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
i   seen  the  Father.''^  John  xiv.  9.    Phe  pronoun  me  here  alludes 
I   to  the  <»  divinity  of  Christ,^^  as  I  have  before  explained  it ;  and 
'    as  our  Lord  explained  it  to  Philip,  verse  10  :  **  The  words  that 
I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself;  [as  the  son  of  Mary,] 
,   the  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me.  He  dotii  the  works."    Now  here 
is  no  distinction  of  divine  persons  in  the  Godhead  ;  and  yet  there 
is  a  clear  distinction  between  Jesns  as  a  man,  and  God  in  Christ! 
\^  and,  as  if  to  show  that  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  meant  the 
same  thing  when  applied  to  the  divinity,  our  Saviour  here  ex- 
pressly informs  us,  that  HE  is  himself  the  Father,    2d.  This 
truth  will  be  amply  corroborated  by  a  due  consideration  of  the 
foll<»wing  passages — one  of  which,  to  suit  his  own  purpose, 
I      Paul"  has  partially  quoted :     And  I  will  pray  the  Father^ 
and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with 
you  forever,  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth,^'  John  xiv.  16,  17.    *'  / 
will  not  leave  you  comfortless,  I  will  come  to  you."  verse  18. 
I     The  Comforter^  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will 
il  send  in  my  name,  He  shall  teach  you  all  things."  ver.  26, 
I  «  When  the  Comforter  is  come  wliom  I  will  send  unto  you  from 
the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  which  proceedeth  from 
the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me."  xv.  26.    «*  It  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away,  [as  to  mf  personal  presence,]  for  if  1  go 
not  aw  ay  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you,  but  if  1  depart, 
I  will  send  him  unto  you."  xvi.  7. 

In  these  passages  it  is  observable,  1st.  That  this  Comforter 
is  the  Holy  Spirit:  *»  even  the  Spirit  of  truth."  That  this 
Comforter  is  Christ  .•"  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless,  I  will 
come  unto  you."  3d.  That  it  is  the  Father  who  sends  this  Com- 
forter :  The  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the 
Father  will  send,^^  &c.  4th.  That  it  is  Christ  who  sends  this 
Comforter;  «*  If  /depart  I  will  send  him  unto  you" — the  Com- 
forter whom  I  will  send  unto  you,"  &c.  5th.  That  the  terms 
<♦  ChrisV*  and  the  *«  Father'^  are  convertible  terms  ;  when  ap- 
plied to  the  Divinity,  they  mean  the  same  thing:  "  He  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father." 

The  premises  being  seriously  considered,  I  think  the  follow- 
ing conclusions  will  be  deemed  irrefutable  :  Ist.  That  the 
47 


sro 


terms  «  Father,''  and  «  Christ,"  and  « the  Comforter,"  and 
the  <*  Holy  Spirit,"  are,  when  applied  to  the  Divinity,  perlVctly 
synonymous.  2d.  And  consequently,  that  God  the  leather  is 
Christ  the  Saviour — that  Christ  the  Saviour  is  the  Comforter — 
that  the  Comforter  is  tlie  Holy  Spirit — that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
God  the  Father^  for  «•  God  is  a  Spirit."  John  iv.  -i^  ;  and  as 
the  Apostle  expresses  it,  he  is  **tlie  only  wise  Gud  our  Saviour," 
to  whom  "  he  glory  and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  bjith  now 
and  ever.  Amtn."  Jude  25.  AMjCL  S. 

N.B.  For  want  of  room  I  must  postpone  a  reply  to  the  other 
arguments  of  my  opponent  to  a  future  essay. 

Saturday/,  Auquat  31,  182«. 

LETTER  XXXIV. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

And  I  will  pray  the  Father ^  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Com- 
forter ^  that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever  ;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
whom  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  seeth  him  not,  neither 
knoweth  him  ;  but  ye  know  him,  for  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall 
he  in  you."*'  John  xiv.  16,  17. 

I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world: 
again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father.  His  disciples  said 
unto  him,  to  !  now  speakest  thou  plainly,  and  speakest  no  proverb,^' 
John  xvi.  28,  29. 

The  subject  which  at  present  engages  our  attention,  is  very 
important,  and  ought  to  be  well  understood.  It  enters  into  the 
very  essence  of  the  Christian  religion.  If  our  views  are  erro- 
neous with  respect  to  the  God  of  our  salvation,  they  must  also 
be  equally  so  on  every  subject  connected  therewith.  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  chief  corner  stone"  on  which  tlie  spiritual 
temple  of  the  Lord  is  erected.  If  our  hope  of  eternal  life  is 
not  built  on  this  sure  foundation,  it  will  he  found  at  last  that  we 
have  built  on  a    sandy  foundation,''^  which  will  nf)t  only  be 

shaken,'^  but  entirely  destroyed  at  that  awful  day,  when  <*  the 
wrath  of  God  shall  be  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  ungod- 
liness and  unrighteousness  of  men."  It  is  then  absolutely  ne- 
cessary to  salvation  that  we  have  correct  faith  with  respect  to 
the  divinity,  person  and  offices  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ. 

As  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  of  so  much  consequence  in 
the  Christian  system,  it  will  be  gratifying  to  the  public  to  see 
it  further  illustrated  and  confirmed  :  We  beg  leave,  therefore. 


371 


to  occupy  a  part  of  the  present  number  with  extracts  from  two 
or  three  of  the  most  approved  Trinitarian  writers. 

1st.  Watts. — Of  this  writer  «  Amicus"  says,  (page  351,) 
"Waits,  with  respect  to  the  divine  nature,  and  its  manifesta- 
tion in  the  flesh,  came  nearer  to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  than 
any  of  them." 

Let  us  hear  what  Watts  has  to  say  on  this  subject.  His  es- 
say on  <♦  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  Trinity"  is  divided  into 
a  number  of  pn)positions,  each  of  which  he  illustrates  at  large. 
We  have  only  room  to  give  a  part  of  those  propositions,  as  they 
stand  at  the  head  of  each  chapter,  but  from  them  our  readers 
will  obtain  a  just  idea  of  the  doctrine  of  Watts. 

Proposition  4. — *^  Since  there  can  be  but  one  God,  the  pe- 
culiar, divine,  and  distinguishing  characters  of  Godhead,  can- 
not belong  to  any  other  Being." 

Prop.  7. — **  The  peculiar  and  distinguishing  characters  of 
Godhead  are  these: — Xames — Titles — Mrihutes — Works^  and 
•Worsliip — which  God  has  assumed  to  himself  in  his  Word,  ex- 
clusive of  any  other  being ;  and  has  either  asserted  their  ex- 
pressly belonging  only  to  himself,  or  left  it  sufficiently  evident 
in  his  Word,  that  they  belong  to  him  alone." 

Prop.  8. — «*  Yet  these  very  names,  titles,  &c.  which  are  pe- 
culiar to  God,  and  incommunicable  to  any  other,  are  ascribed  to 
three,  by  God  himself  in  his  Word  ;  which  three  are  distinguish- 
ed by  the  names  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit." 

Prop.  10. — *«  Thence  it  follows,  necessarily,  that  these  three 
have  such  an  intimate  and  real  communion  in  that  one  Godhead, 
as  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  ascription  of  those  distinguishing 
divine  characters  to  them.^^ 

Prop.  12. — "  Though  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit  are  but  one 
true  God,  yet  there  are  such  distinguishing  properties^  actions, 
characters  and  circumstances  ascribed  to  them,  as  are  usually  as- 
cribed to  three  distinct  persons  among  men." 

Prop.  13. — "  Therefore  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  in  almost  all  ages,  to  use  the  word  person  in  order 
to  describe  these  three  distinctions  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit, 
and  to  call  them  three  distinct  persons,^* 

Prop.  14. — Though  the  Sacred  Three  are  evidently  and 
plainly  discovered  in  Scripture  to  be  one  and  the  same  God,  and 
three  distinct  personal  agents  or  persons  ;  yet  the  Scripture  hath 
not,  in  plain  and  evident  language,  explained  or  precisely  de- 
termined the  particular  way  and  manner,  how  these  three  per- 
sons are  one  God,  or  how  this  one  Godhead  is  in  three  persons.'*^ 

Prop  15. — Hence  I  infer,  that  it  can  never  be  necessary 
to  salvation,  to  know  the  precise  manner  how  one  God  subsists 


372 


in  these  three  personal  agents.  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  or  h&w 
these  three  are  one  God/' 

Prop,  16. — Yet  we  ought  to  believe  the  genera!  doctrine  of 
the  Trinit}' — namely,  that  these  three  personal  agents  liave  some 
real  communion  in  one  Godhead,  thougli  we  cannot  find  out  the 
precise  way  of  explaining  it." 

Prop.  20 — <*  We  are  hound  therefore  to  pay  divine  honours 
to  each  of  the  sacred  three,  according  to  their  distinct  charac- 
ters and  offices  assigned  to  them  in  Scripture." 

Prop.  21. — «  In  so  doing  we  shall  effectually  secure  our  own 
salvation  ;  for  the  Scripiure  hath  made  our  salvation  to  depend 
on  these  offices  whicli  these  divine  persons  sustain,  and  the  ho- 
nours due  to  them  according  t()  those  offices ;  rather  than  upon 
any  deep  philosophical  notions  of  their  essences  and  personalities — 
any  nice  and  exact  acquaintance  with  their  mysterious  union 
and  distinction." 

The  whole  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  ahove  extract,  is 
admirably  expressed  in  one  stanza  of  the  29th  hymn,  third 
book  of  Watts'  sacred  poetry  ; 

Glory  to  God  the  Trinity, 

"  Whose  name  has  mysteries  unknown  ; 
**  In  essence  oncj  in  persons  Three  ; 

**  A  social  naturCi  yet  alone." 

From  these  extracts,  in  Watts'  own  words,  it  is  evident  that 
]»e  held  precisely  the  same  sentiments  with  Trinitarians  in 
general;  and  it  will  also  be  seen  how  grossly  Watts'  doctrine 
has  been  misrepresented  by  Amicus,"  in  p.  352.  Our  op- 
ponent there  sa\s,  *»  He  (i.  e.  Watts)  maintained  that  there 
is  one  supreme  God  dwelling  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ — 
that  the  divine  Logos  was  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  the  divirte  power." 

It  is  plain  from  the  quotation  just  given  from  Watts,  that  he 

maintained"  no  such  doctrine.  His  opinion  was — that  the  second 
person  in  the  Trinity,  whom  he  calls  the  divine  Logos,  dwelt 
in  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  that  tlie  divine  Logos  and 
Holy  Spirit,  were  really  and  truly  distinct  persons  in  the  Deity, 
from  the  Father. 

«*  Amicus"  has  also  misrepresented  his  opinion  w^th  respect 
to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  by  affirming  that  **  he  diftered 
from  the  Athanasians  very  widely  on  the  subject  of  tlie  human 
nature,  <ir  Jiesh  born  of  the  virgin  Mary  ;  this  he  supposed  to 
have  existed  the  first  of  all  creatures."  This  is  entirely  erro- 
neous. Watts  did  not  differ  in  the  least  from  other  Trinitarians 
with  respect  to  the  <•  Jlesk  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  He  be- 
lieved that  the  human  body  of  Christ  was  formed  in  the  same 
manner  that  our  bodies  are.  The  only  difference  between  Watts 


373 


and  us,  on  this  subjoct,  is  this :  he  believed  that  the  human 
Soul  of  Chrisi  (^iiot  iUtJiesfij  »<  existed  the  first  of  all  creatures." 

**  Amicus"  appears  to  wish  to  enlist  Watts  on  his  side  oi 
the  controversy  ;  l»ut  we  are  confident  he  has  missed  his  aim, 
if  such  aim  he  had. 

After  heing  detected  in  such  misrepresentations,  we  wonder 
if  «  Amicus"  will  think  himself  entitled  to  the  character  of  a 
**  candid  disputant."  Is  it  candour  to  misrepresent  oi^r  writers, 
and  then  raise  the  cry,  see  lirw  they  differ!! 

We  do  not  accuse  *«  Amicus"  of  wit/w^  misrepresentation; 
'  we  believe  ♦*  he  did  it  througli  ignorance,"  and  that  he  has  at- 
tempted to  quote  Watts,  w  ithout  having  any  ;)erso7io/  acquaint- 
ance with  that  great  writer.  We  reconiniend  to  •*  Amicus"  to 
procure  Watts'  **  Scripture  doctrine  ot  the  Trinity,"  and  give 
it  a  diligent  perusal,  and  perhaps  some  of  his  prejudices  against 
the  doctrine  may  be  removed 

2.  Gill  proves  the  personality  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  by 
the  foHowing  arguments  : 
Firs^--Of  the  Son. 

1.  **  His  being  with  God  as  the  Word,  John  i.  1;  he  cannot 
witli  any  propriety  he  said  to  he  with  himself." 

2.  **  His  being  set  up  from  everlasting  as  Mediator — a  mere 
name  and  character  could  not  be  said  to  he  set  up,  to  be  co- 
venanted with.  See  Prov.  viii.  23.  Psalm  Ixxxix.  3,  28." 

3.  His  being  sent  in  the  fulness  of  time  to  be  the  Saviour 
of  his  people,  shew^s  him  to  be  distinct  from  the  Father,  whose 
Son  he  is,  and  by  whom  he  w  as  sent." 

4  "  His  becoming  a  sacrifice  and  making  satisfaction  for 
the  sins  of  men,  and  so  the  Redeemer  and  Saviour  of  them 
plainly  declare  his  distinct  personality.  Reconciliation  and 
atonement  for  sin,  are  personal  acts." 

5  "  His  ascension  to  heaven,  and  session  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  shew  him  to  be  a  perscm  that  ascended,  and  is  sat  down. 
<  The  Lord  said  unto  mij  Lord,  sit  on  my  right  hand.'  He  can- 
not be  the  same  perscm  with  him  at  whose  right  hand  he  sits." 
John  XX.  17.  Heb.  i.  13. 

6.  "  His  advocacy  and  intercession  with  his  Father ,  are  a 
plain  proof  of  his  distinct  personality.  He  is  said  to  be  an  *  ad- 
vocate with  the  Father.'  1  John  ii.  ±;  and  therefore  he  must  be 
a  person,  to  act  the  part  of  an  advocate;  he  himself  says:  *J 
will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter,' 
meaning  the  Spirit  of  truth,  as  next  explained,  John  xiv.  16, 
17.  Now  he  must  be  distinct  from  the  Father  to  whom  he  prays, 
for  surely  he  cannot  be  supposed  to  pray  to  himself;  and  he 
must  be  distinct  from  the  Spirit  for  whom  he  prays." 

«  The  distinct  personality  of  the  Spirit  is  proved  from  - 


1.  His  procession  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  2.  The  mission 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Father  and  the  Son.  3.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  called  another  Comforter.  4.  The  Holy  Spir  it  is  repre- 
sented as  doing  some  things  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son  2  Thcss.  iii.  5.  John  xvi.  14,  15.  5.  There  are  some  dis- 
tinct appearances  of  the  Spirit,  which  shew  his  distinct  per- 
sonality, as  at  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  the  day  of  pentecost. 
6.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  as  a  distinct  person  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  Matt,  xxviii.  19." 

3.  Parkhurstj  whom  **  Amicus"  recommends  as  a  "good 
writer  on  the  Hebrew  language,"  is  very  explicit  in  proving 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  See 
his  remarks  under  the  words  Elohim  and  Keruh, 

4.  The  last  author  from  wliom  we  shall  quote,  is  Dr.  Scott, 
the  author  of  a  C«»mmentary  (m  the  Bible,  who  is  universally 
esteemed  as  a  pious,  judicious  and  learned  divine.  Scott  was 
himself  at  one  time  an  Unitarian,  an  opposer  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  ;  but  when  he  was  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
"  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,"  he  gave  tlie  following  testimony  of 
his  faith :  If  distinct  personality,  agency  and  divine  perfections, 
be  in  Scripture  ascribed  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  no  words  can  more  exactly  express  the  doc- 
trine, which  must  unavoidably  be  thence  inferred,  than  those 
commonly  used  on  this  subject ;  viz  :  that  there  are  three  dis- 
tinct persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead.  The  sacred  oracles 
most  assuredly  teach  us,  that  the  one,  living  and  true  God  is, 
in  some  inexplicable  manner,  Trinne,  for  he  is  spoken  of,  as 
One  in  some  respects,  and  Three  in  others.  The  Trinity  of  per- 
sons in  the  Deity  consists  with  the  unity  of  the  divine  essence, 
though  we  pretend  not  to  explain  the  modus  (or  mannfer  of  it) 
and  deem  those  reprehensible  who  have  attempted  it.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  is  indeed  a  mystery,  but  no  man  hath  yet 
shewn  that  it  involves  in  it  a  real  contradiction.  Yet  till  this  be 
shewn,  it  is  neither  fair  nor  convincing  to  exclaim  against  it 
as  contradictory,  absnrd,  and  irrationaU^  From  these  extracts 
the  reader  may  form  a  correct  idea  of  the  commonly  received 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity." 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  convince  a  humble  and  candid 
mind,  that  the  doctrine  we  advocate  is  in  perfect  accordance 
with  the  inspired  Word  of  God :  and  we  believe  that  all  the 
ridicule  and  misrepresentation  of  its  opposers,  will  fail  to  make 
it  appear  absurcl.  Let  all  those  who  are  anxious  inquirers,  and 
are  willing  to  know  the  truth,  compare  the  arguments  which 
we  have  advanced,  with  the  Scriptures, — let  them  pray  c(m- 
tinually  for  the  enlightening  influence  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit, — and 
then  let  each  one  be  persuaded  in  his  own  mind  ^  remembering 


375 


at  the  same  time,  that  he  who  denieth  the  Son,  dcnieth  ths 
Father  also and  that  he  who  hath  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
is  none  of  Iiis."  From  the  last  communication  of  ♦*  Amicus,** 
it  a])pears  that  he  is  determined  to  go  on  with  his  quibble  on 
the  words  person  and  substance.  He  occupies  more  than  a  third 
part  of  his  essay  in  attempting  to  prove  that  we  must  either  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  three  Gods  or  of  no  God.  Our  faith  is 
and  ever  has  been,  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  divine 
essence f  substance  or  Godhead — three  persons  in  one  divine  nature, 

>Ve  defy  our  opponents  to  shew  that  this  faith  is  absurd. 
They  may  misrepresent  and  quibble  as  much  as  they  please,  but 
let  them  remember  that  quibbling^  misrepresentation  and  ridicule, 
are  not  argument. 

«*  Amicus"  in  his  concluding  remarks,  has  confounded  the 
terms,  Father^  Son  and  Spirit,  making  them  to  ««  mean  the  same 
thing  when  applied  to  the  Deity."  It  follows  then  from  this 
explanation,  that  when  it  is  said,  that  **  God  sent  his  Son  into 
the  world,"  it  is  only  meant  that  *«  God  sent  himself/  /  /"  That 
when  it  is  said  :  *<  the  Father  will  send  the  Holy  Ghost" — it  is 
meant  "  the  Father  will  send  himself  / 1 The  absurdity  of 
such  an  interpretation  of  Scripture  will  fully  appear  from  John 
xvi.  7  ;  Christ  there  speaking  to  his  disciples,  says :  It  is  expe- 
dient,'  &c.  (see  the  whole  passage.)  Now  if  Christ  and  the  Com- 
forter or  Holy  Ghost,  mean  the  **same  thing,"  then  if  Christ 
had  not  gone  away,  the  Comforter  or  Holy  Ghost  would  have 
been  with  the  disciples ;  for  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  (ac- 
cording to  "Amicus")  mean  the  same  thing.  But  according  to 
the  text,  the  Holy  Ghost  or  Comforter  was  not  present  with  the 
disciples;  for  Christ  says:  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter 
will  710^  come,"  and  "  if  /  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you." 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost  must  then  be  distinct  and  separate, 
for  the  Spirit  is  called  another  Comforter,  he  is  not,  therefore, 
the  same  with  Christ.  From  this  it  is  plain  that  the  interpre- 
tation of  «  Amicus"  is  as  opposite  to  the  text,  as  darkness  is  to 
light. 

"  Amicus"  has  given  us  his  view  and  the  views  of  your  so- 
ciety, on  the  divinity  of  Christ;  we  hope  he  will  be  kind 
enough  to  proceed  and  let  us  know  what  you  believe  concern- 
ing the  "  atonemtnt^^ — *<  mediation''^ — "  intercession,"  &c.  of 
our  Saviour,  and  other  subjects  connected  with  them.  If  "  Ami- 
cus" should  feel  any  reluctance  to  proceed  to  these  subjects, 
especially  to  the  "  atonement,^^  we  would  remind  him  that  **  truth 
does  not  fear  the  light."  PAUL. 


376 


Seventh-day,  9th  mo.  7,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXV. 

In  my  present  opponent  I  had  Iioped  to  find  an  antagonist 
prepared  to  meet  me  on  the  ground  of  argument,  to  discuss  any 
point  relating  to  a  doctrine,  which  he  tells  us  **  is  \Qvy  import- 
ant, and  ought  to  be  well  understood  /"  **  Paul"  had  manifested 
an  usual  degree  of  anxiet)'  to  bring  it  before  the  public.  He 
seemed  to  forget  the  Scripture  admonition  :  «  Let  not  him  that 
girdeth  on  the  harness  boast  himself  as  he  that  putteth  it  off," 
1  Kings  XX.  11.  He  seemed  to  triumph  as  a  victor,  ere  the  battle 
was  begun  ! ! !  If  my  readers  have  any  curiosity  to  vSee  the 
most  singular  specimen  of  gasconade,  that  perhaps  a  century 
has  produced,  let  them  consult  his  xxixth  Letter,  page  312  ! — 
Instead,  however,  of  meeting  me  on  tlie  ground  of  fair  argu- 
ment and  rational  investigation,  he  evades  or  tries  to  evade  all 
my  deductions  by  saying  :  **  Amicus  appears  to  be  determined 
to  go  on  with  his  quibble  on  the  words  person  and  substance.  He 
occupies  more  than  a  third  of  liis  essay  in  attempting  to  prove 
that  we  must  either  believe  in  the  existence  of  three  Gods  ()v  of 
no  God.^' — Now  can  "  Paui."  be  so  weak  as  to  believe,  that  this 
kind  of  answer  to  my  arguments  will  satisfy  a  discerning  pub- 
lic ?  Does  he  suppose  that  his  character  as  an  anonymous  writer 
will  have  so  much  weight  with  our  readers,  that  they  will  for 
his  sake  reverse  the  order  of  things — call  argument  «*  a  quibble,'* 
and  dignify  a  quibble  with  the  title  of  aririimentr  According  to 
our  best  lexicographers  a  quibble  is  an  equivocation^  an  eva- 
sion Is  the  *<  more  than  one  third  of  my  essay''  alluded  to, 
an  equivocation  ? — Ls  it  an  evasion — an  attempt  to  escape  the 
force  of  my  opponent's  arguments?  It  is  ridiculous  to  affirm 
it ! ! !  But  it  is  very  clear  that  this  reply  to  arguments  which 
he  cannot  refute  is  a  mere  quibble — an  evasion  of  the  most  con- 
temptible kind !  and  I  have  very  little  doubt  but  the  candid 
reader  will  perceive,  that  such  a  reply  to  more  than  one  third 
part  of  my  essay,'*  is  little  less  than  a  confession  that  it  cannot 
he  refuted  ! !  !  Now  let  my  opponent  remember,  that  quib- 
bling is  not  argument ! ! !" 

That  the  "  persons"  composing  his  "  triune  God,"  must  be 
cither  finite  or  infinite,  is  a  position  that  cannot  be  rejected  I 
They  must  be  one  or  the  other.  There  is  no  alternative  !  That 
they  must  be  substantial  or  unsubstantial  is  equally  certain ! 
But  I  proved  from  premises  granted  by  my  ojiponents,  that 
they  Sive  finite  and  unsubstantial ! — of  course,  they  must  believe 
either  in  an  unsubstantial,  imas;inaryi  unreal  God,  or  that  three 
finite,  unreal,  imaginary  persons,  although  <*  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate," can  make  ONE  SUBS  I  AN  HAL,  REAL,  INFINITE 


377 


GOD ! ! ! — Now  we  defy  our  opponents  to  show  that  this  faith 
is  not  absurd"  ! !  I 

It  has  been  seen  by  our  readers  that  the  terms  «  TRINITY" 
and  PERSONS"  as  applied  to  tbe  Deity,  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  sacred  volume  ;  the  advocates  of  a  *•  plural  God,"  have 
therefore  been  forced  to  resort  to  the  fallible  standard  of  human 
reason  for  support.  Whether  this  standard  bas  supported  them 
or  not,  my  readers  will  already  be  able  to  judge.  Mystery  and 
absurdity  are  hitherto  the  undeviating  companions  of  their  pro- 
gress. Their  doctrine  is  not  only  above  reason,  but  contrary  to 
reason!  It  is  supported,  not  by  Scripture,  but  by  their  own 
conclusions,  drawn  from  premises  which  have  not  been  granted. 
It  is  such  a  mass  of  contradiction  and  inconsistency,  that  its 
ablest  defenders  have  been  embarrassed  and  confused  at  every 
turn  ! ! !  That  this  is  the  situation  of  *«  Paul"  will  now  appear  ! 

In  his  last  address  my  opponent  says :  "  the  subject  which  at 
present  engages  our  attention  is  very  important,  and  ought  to 
be  well  understood  ;  it  enters  into  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
religion." — Here  **  Paul"  is  inconsistent  with  himself,  for  if 
he  be  correct,  this  subject  never  can  be  understood — <•  It  is  a 
mystery"— It  is  impossible  to  understand  it!  DR.  MILLER 
in  his  <*  Letters  on  Unitarianism,"  acknowledges,  that  he  does 
not  even  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  terms  he  uses — of 
course  he  does  not  understand  the  subject !  It  is  therefore  a 
subject,  not  for  the  understandings  but  for  the  exercise  of  im- 
plicit faith;  not  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  but  in  the  gross 
and  carnal  construction  of  the  Trinitarians  ! ! !  The  doctrine 
of  the  TRINITY,  like  that  of  TRANSUBSTANTIATION, 
sets  reason  at  defiance,  and  leaves  us  nothing  to  rest  upon,  but 
the  opinions  of  weak  and  fallible  men ! — And  it  is  a  solemn 
truth,  that  this  implicit  faith  is  now,  and  ever  has  been,  the 
main  pillar  of  priest-craft ;  only  make  the  people  believe  that 
a  human  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  though  violating  the 
plain  dictates  of  reason,  is  the  standard  of  ORTHODOXY, 
and  our  religious  liberty  will  then  be  committed  to  the  keep- 
ing of  thos<^,  who  have  never  failed  to  crush  it  when  they  had 
it  in  their  power.  It  is  a  favourite  idea  of  the  clergy,  that  when 
a  layman  expresses  a  sentiment  on  religious  subjects,  he  is 
«  stepping  out  of  his  province."  This  doctrine  of  implicit  faith 
contrary  to  reason,  contains  the  very  essence  of  POPERY  ! ! ! 

In  my  last  1  replied  to  Paul's"  arguments  drawn  from  the 
text,  John  xiv.  16,  17.  f  shewed  from  the  express  language  of 
our  Lord  himself,  that  the  terms  Father,"  •*  Son"  anil  »*  Holy 
Spirit,''  when  applied  to  the  Divinity,  mean  the  same  thing— 
that  this  must  be  true,  appears  not  only  from  the  many  plain 
^8 


S78 


Scripture  passages  I  then  adduced,  but  from  the  plainest  rea- 
sons, some  of  which  I  will  now  exhibit. 

It  is  acknowledged  by  all  that  there  is  but  one  God,  of  course 
but  one  divine  nature.  Our  opponents  hold,  that  "  God  sub- 
sists in  three  distinct  and  separate  divine  persons,^^  Now,  if  these 
div  ine  persons  be  distinct  and  separate,  then  there  must  be  three 
distinct  and  separate  divinities.  This  conclusion  is  substanti- 
ated by  the  following  considerations ;  The  Trinitarians  make 
their  *«  three  persons"  three  distinct  and  separate  Holy  Spirits  ! 
That  the  Father  is  a  iloly  Spirit  they  cannot  deny,  for  Christ 
speaking  ol  the  Father,  says  :  ♦*God  is  a  Spirit,"  John  iv.  24?. 
I'hat  Christ  the  Saviour  is  a  Holy  Spirit,  is  equally  certain, 
for  the  Apostle  expressly  says  :  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spi- 
rit of  his  Son  into  your  hearts."  Gal.  iv.  6.  <•  If  any  man  have 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  his."  Rom.  viii.  9.  That 
the  third  person  in  their  Trinity  is  a  HOLY  SPIRIT,  is  evi- 
dent from  this  appellation.  Thus  we  liave  three  distinct  and 
separate  divine  and  holy  Spirits ;  and  as  every  Spirit  must  have 
a  being,  of  course  there  must  be  three  distinct  and  separate  Di- 
vine Beings  I  Here  we  are  helplessly  and  hopelessly  landed  in 
TRI  THEISM.  unless  we  turn  away  from  Athanasian  idolatry, 
and  embrace  this  simpk  truth,  that  the  terms  "Father,"  "  Son," 
and  Holy  Spirit,"  mean  the  same  thing  when  applied  to  the 
divinity. 

But  "  Paul"  says  I  have  "  confounded  the  terms  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit."  If  there  be  any  weight  in  the  charge,  it  lies 
equally  heavy  against  our  Lord  himself,  as  well  as  against  the 
Evangelists  and  Apostles,  as  may  be  shown  by  numerous  pas- 
sages of  Scripture.  1  will  instance  a  few  of  them  : — «'  He  that 
hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father,^*  John  xiv.  9.  /  and  my 
Father  are  owe."  John  x.  30.  This  point  is  made  remarkably 
clear  by  that  memorable  passage  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Romans, 
chap.  viii.  I  w  ill  quote  a  part  of  it,  and  refer  my  readers  to 
the  chapter,  with  the  expression  of  a  wish  that  they  would  read 
it  attentively.  «  Ye  are  not  in  the  flesh  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so 
be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in  yon;^^  "  now  if  any  man  have 
not  the  Spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his  ;  and  if  Christ  be  in  you 
the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin.  But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised  up 
Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies,  by 
his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you,^^  '*  Know  ye  not  that  your  body 
is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  in  yoiu^^  1  Cor.  vi.  19. 
Now,  from  our  Lord's  expressions  it  is  manifest,  that  the  terms 
«  Father"  and  «  Christ,"  when  applied  to  the  Divinity,  means 
the  same  thing—they  are  used  synonymously.  And  it  is  equal- 
ly  evident,  from  the  words  of  the  Apostles,  that  the  terms 


379 


^«  Spirit  of  God''— Spirit  of  Ciirisl"— and  "Holy  Spirits- 
mean  the  same  thing:  they  are  alJ  mentioned  indiscriminately, 
as  that  one  holy,  div  ine,  quickening,  sanctifying  principle,  that 
dwelleth  in"  true  believers,  and  without  which  we  cannot  be 
Christians  !  Will  my  opponent  dare  deny  this  position  ?  If  not, 
how  can  he  avoid  tliis  conclusion,  that  he  has  charged  our  Lord 
and  his  Apostle  with  "confounding  the  terms  Father,  Son  and 

^  Spirit?'*  in  other  words,  he  has  charged  them  with  denying  the 
orthodox  docti'ine  oi'  the  Trinity.'* 

It  is  a  good  remark  of  *•  Phipps,"  that  the  inspired  writers 
**  often  speak  of  things  promiscuously." — Sometimes  they 
speak  of  Christ  as  "  the  Ward,"  which  respects  his  divinity — 
"  sometimes  as  man,  or  as  in  the  flesh,  and  sometimes  compre- 
hending both  senses  in  the  same  words.  For  want  of  a  right 
understanding  properly  to  distinguish  them,  men  are  apt  to 
jumble  and  mistake  one  for  another.  Hence  arise  disagree- 
ment, clashing  and  jangling  about  the  true  sense  of  Scripture, 
and  trying  it  by  the  notions  and  systems  they  have  espoused, 
instead  of  trying  tliem  by  the  truth,  it  is  no  wonder  there  is  so 
much  controversy."  See  "  Original  and  present  state  of  man." 
Philad.  edit.  1818,  page  178.    Pnipps  might  have  added:  "the 

^  want  of  this  distinction  has  originated  the  gross,  irrational, 
and  absurd  doctrine  of  the  *  Trinity.'" 

But  my  opponent  rests  the  defence  of  his  scheme  principally 
upon  the  expressions:  "  He  shall  teach" — "  He  shall  bring  all 
things  to  your  remembrance" — "  Whom  the  Father  will  send." 
I  consider  the  proofs  in  my  last  essay  sufficient  to  overturn  a 
volume  of  such  arguments.  It  however  appears,  that  "  Paul" 
does  not  think  so.  He  says,  in  his  last  Letter,  "  it  follows 
then  from  [Amicus*]  explanation,  that  when  it  is  said,  that 
God  sent  his  Son  into  the  world,  it  only  meant,  that  God  sent 
himself!  that  when  it  is  said,  "The  Father  will  send  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  it  meant,  the  Father  will  send  himself!" — "  Paul"  could 
hardly  have  given  a  clearer  proof,  either  of  the  grossness  of  his 
conceptions  of  the  divine  nature,  which  is  infinite — or  of  the 
finite  nature  of  the  persons  which  compose  his  ^*  triune  God."  It 
must  be  obvious  to  the  rational  candid  inquirer  after  divine 
truth,  that  our  Lord  himself  and  the  inspired  penmen  used  a 
phraseology  adapted  to  the  capacity  of  his  children,  who,  in  the 
twilight  of  religious  knowledge,  could  not  comprehend  those 
more  extended  views  of  the  divine  nature,  which  the  Gospel 
dispensation  was  intended  finally  to  introduce ! — ^Thus  when  it 
is  said  :  "  God  came  from  Teman,  the  Holy  One  from  Mount 
Paran."  Hab.  iii.  3.  When  the  Psalmist  said:  "  Bow  thy  hea- 
vens, O  Lord,  and  come  down."  Psalm  cxliv.  5,  We  must, 
upon  ^<  Paul's"  hypothesis,  conclude  that  God  is  a  finite  be- 


sso 


ing !  that  the  infinite  Jehovah  could  move  from  place  to  place, 
which  is  absurd  ! ! !  Now  what  will  «'  Paul"  say  to  the  follow- 
ing expressions  of  Christ  himself:  **  He  that  believtth  on  me, 
believeth  not  on  me — but  on  him  that  sent  me  /" — **  He  that  seeth 
we,  seeth  him  that  sent  we."  John  xii.  44,  45.  Is  it  not  obvi- 
ous, from  these  passages,  that  he  that  sendeth  and  he  that  is  sent, 
are  the  same,  as  it  relates  to  the  divine  nature  ?  There  can  be 
but  one  true  answer  to  this  question  !  So  that  all  the  absurdity 
which  «'  Paul"  has  charged  on  the  interpretation  of  Amicus, 
falls  directly  on  our  Lord  himself! ! ! 

Another  of  "  Paul's"  convincing  arguments^*  he  deduces 
from  the  baptism  of  Jesus.  Matt,  iii.  16,  17.  His  argument, 
however,  proves  him  to  be  as  carnal  in  his  notions  as  the  poor 
Jews,  who,  when  Christ  told  them,  **  I  am  the  living  bread," 
&c.  said:  "  how  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat."  John  vi. 
51.  Any  other  force  in  his  argument,  J  am  utterly  unable  to 
perceive !  To  suppose  one  person  in  the  Godhead  walking  up 
out  of  the  water — while  a  second  person  is  descending  in  the 
shape  of  a  dove,  and  a  third  person  uttering  a  voice  from  hea- 
ven, is  to  give  them  such  a  limited  existence — so  much  locality — 
such  definite  forms,  as  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  omni- 
presence and  infinity  of  the  ineffable  God.  To  suppose  that  He 
who  is  inscrutable,  who  can  manifest  himself  in  what  way  he 
pleaseth,  and  in  millions  of  places  at  the  same  instant,  is  so  di- 
vided, does  indeed  appear  a  gross  and  carnal  conception." 
But  *<  Paul"  asserts,  that  «  if  this  passage  does  not  teach  the 
doctrine  of  three  persons  in  the  divine  nature,  it  teaches  no- 
thing, and  is  entirely  without  meaning."  Before  he  made  this 
groundless  assertion  with  so  much  confidence,  he  ought  to  have 
remembered,  that  the  Evangelist  John  gives  us  a  much  stronger 
and  infinitely  more  rational  cause  for  this  miraculous  display  of 
outward  evidence  !  Its  design,  as  expressed  by  John,  was,  that 
Jesus  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel.  "  He  that  sent  me  to 
baptize  with  water,"  says  the  Baptist,  « the  same  said  unto 
me-^Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and 
remaining  upon  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  It  seems  to  have  been  particularly  intended  to 
open  the  understanding  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  convince  him 
that  this  was  indeed  the  Messiah  that  should  come  !  And  here- 
by John  was  enabled,  when  he  saw  Jesus  walking,  to  say  to  the 
Jews:     Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  !"  John  i.  31,  33,  36. 

The  words  used  by  our  Lord,  when  he  sent  forth  his  minis- 
ters, Matt,  xxxiii.  19,  and  the  Apostolic  benediction,  2  Cor. 
xiii.  14,  add  no  strength  to  the  position  of  my  opponent.  The 
terms  «  Father,"  «  Son"  and  Holy  Spirit,"  refer  us  to  one 
divine  power,  life,  and  virtue,  as  I  have  before  abundantly 


381 


proved.  To  baptize  in  the  name,  or  into  the  name,  (as  the  ori« 
ginal  has  it,)  is  to  bring  the  soul  under  i/ie  jjower  which  only 
comes  from  God.  To  baptize  into  the  name  of  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost,  is  to  baptize  into  the  power  of  God  the  Father," 
which  was  manifested  to  the  patriarchs  and  prophets ;  into  the 
name  power  as  manifested  in  the  **  Son"  by  miracles,  and  siji^ns, 
and  wonders  which  God  did  by  him.  Acts  ii.22, — into  the  pow- 
er of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  manifested  in  the  Apostles  and  others, 
on  the  day  of  pentecost,  and  since,  m  a  greater  or  lesser  degree 
in  every  real  Christian  !  And  this  same  divine  power,  which 
God  manifested  •*  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,"  to 
his  children  under  former  dispensations,  is  appointed  of  him, 
for  their  «  salvation  to  the  end  of  the  world !''  The  name" 
of  God  and  Christ  is  in  the  Scriptures,  by  a  metonymy,  gene- 
rally used  for  *«  the  power." 

The  passage  1  John  i.  7,  which  Amicus  termed  spirious^ 
«Paul"  has  ventured  to  quote  in  support  of  his  scheme.  In 
doing  this,  he  has  manifested  but  little  sagacity,  not  duly  con- 
sidering that  a  weak  argument  is  far  worse  than  none !  This 
text,  "  there  are  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,"  &c.  is  un- 
doubtedly an  interpolation.  For  this  sentiment  I  will  give  the 
following  reasons  : — It  is  not  found  in  any  Greek  manuscript, 
written  within  fourteen  hundred  years  after  Christ;  nor  in  any 
Latin  manuscript,  written  earlier  than  the  ninth  century.  It 
is  not  found  in  any  of  the  ancient  versions,  nor  is  cited  by  any 
of  the  Greek  Ecclesiastical  writers  ;  although  to  prove  a  Tri- 
nity, they  have  cited  the  words  both  before  and  after  this  text. 
It  is  not  quoted  by  any  of  the  Latin  fathers,  even  when  their 
subject  would  have  led  them  to  appeal  to  its  authority.  It  is 
first  cited  by  Vigilius  of  Tapsus,  a  Latin  writer  of  no  credit, 
near  five  hundred  years  after  Christ,  and  by  him  it  is  supposed 
to  have  been  forged !  Since  the  reformation,  it  has  been  omit« 
ted  as  spurious  in  many  editions  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
the  two  first  of  Erasmus — in  those  of  Aldus,  Colinoeus,  Zuin- 
glius,  and  lately  of  Griesbach.  It  was  omitted  by  Luther  in 
his  German  version.  In  the  old  English  Bibles  of  Henry  VIII. 
Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth,  it  was  printed  in  a  different  type 
from  the  rest,  or  included  in  brackets.  Archbishop  Newcomb 
omits  it,  and  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln  expresses  his  conviction  that 
it  is  spurious.  Adam  Clarke  says,  that  out  of  one  hundred  an^ 
thirteen  manuscripts  extant,  written  before  the  invention  of 
printing,  it  is  found  but  in  one,  and  that  one  of  comparatively 
recent  date.  Clarke  has  brought  together  such  a  mass  of  evi- 
dence, proving  the  passage  spurious^  that  it  is  wonderful  any 
writer,  making  the  least  pretension  to  candor  ov  learning,  should 
venture  to  insist  on  it  as  genuine  ! 

"  Paul"  advises  Amicus  to  be  "  very  careful  how  he  prcr 


382 


nounces  a  part  of  God's  Word  spurious,  lest  he  should  commit 
that  sin  which  would  take  away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life. 
Amicus  advises  "Paul"  to  be  extremely  cautious  how  he 

adds  to  the  words  of  the  book,"  lest  he  partake  of  "  the 
plai>ues  that  are  written  in  the  book  !"  Rev.  xxii.  18. 

My  opponent,  by  making  long  quotations  from  Trinitarian 
writers,  has  discovered  an  easy  way  of  filling  up  his  paper.  It 
must  be  much  more  comfortable  to  make  lengthy  extracts  from 
friendly  authors,  than  to  answer  difficult  questions,  or  refute 
conclusions  drawn  from  premises  already  conceded  !   I  wish 

Paul"  all  the  satisfaction  which  such  a  course  is  calculated 
to  afford.  Nor  would  1,  on  this  occasion,  disturb  his  repose, 
had  he  not  attempted  show  that  the  amiable  and  excellent  Isaac 
Watts  could  fairly  be  enlisted  as  a  defender  of  the  indefensible 
doctrine  of  the  *<  Trinity."  Now  the  truth  is,  (and  I  challenge 
ray  opponent  to  deny  it,)  that  Dr.  Watts,  in  early  life,  warmly 
embraced  this  doctrine — that  as  he  advanced  in  knowledge  and 
religious  experience,  he  became  doubtful  of  its  truth — that  he 
finally  abandoned  it — and  three  years  before  his  death  pub- 
lished a  work,  entitled  «  Last  Thoughts,"  on  this  subject — 
from  which  it  appears  that  he  wholly  discarded  the  common  no- 
tions of  "  the  Trinity  and  finally,  he  died  an  open  and  candid 
opposer  of  the  Trinitarian  creed. 

That  Amicus  wished  to  enlist  Watts"  on  my  side  is  not 
true.  I  place  no  dependence  on  the  authority  of  names.  It  is 
of  very  little  importance  to  Amicus,  who  espouses  or  rejects 
his  sentiments,  any  further  than  they  are  calculated  to  promote 
their  truest  enjoyment  and  permanent  happiness.  I  have  no 
point  to  carry,  which,  in  the  remotest  degree  effects  my  repu- 
tation or  my  pecuniary  interest.  Truth  is  my  sole  object.  The 
society  of  which  I  am  a  member,  has  been  as  remarkable  for  its 
zeal  in  propagating  what  it  deems  the  truth,  as  it  has  been  sin- 
gular for  its  disconnection  with  the  spirit  of  Proselytism." 
We  fervently  desire  that  all  may  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth.  We  desire  none  to  become  members  of  our  society,  but 
such  who  first  desire  it  for  themselves  ;  nor  is  this  desire  a  suffi- 
cient passport  to  membership  with  us.  To  us  profession  is  a 
very  weak  recommendation — practice  is  the  main  point !  We 
deem  faith  a  very  good  thing,  but  we  hold  to  the  Apostolic  sen- 
timent, that  «  Faith  without  works  is  dead."  Having  no  in- 
terest as  a  religious  body,  but  that  which  rejoices  in  the  happi- 
ness of  all  God's  creation,  we  fully  adopt  the  sentiment  of  our 
Lord,  when  he  said:  «  He  that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them,  I  will  liken  him  to  a  wise  man  that  built  his 
house  upon  a  rock,  and  when  the  storm  came  it  fell  not,  because 
it  was  founded  on  an  immovable  basis.   But  he  that  heareth  and 


383 


doth  them  not,  I  will  liken  to  a  foolish  man,  who  built  his  house 
upon  the  sand,  which  w  hen  the  storm  came,  and  the  rain  de- 
:   scended,  fell,"  because  it  wanted  the  essential  support  of  every 
;    Christian  building,  the  rock  Christ  Jesus,  the  elficient  author 
!   of  every  good  worU,  AMICUS. 


Saturday,  September  14,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXV. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

Canst  thou  hy  searching  find  out  God  ?  canst  thou  find  out  the  At- 
mighty  unto  perfection  ?  It  is  as  high  as  heaven ;  what  canst 
thou  do  ?  deeper  than  hell ;  what  canst  thou  know  ?  The  measure 
thereof  is  longer  than  the  earth,  and  broader  than  the  seaJ^*  Job 
xi.  7,  8,  9. 

Our  reply  to  the  numerous,  refined,  and  (in  some  instances) 
unintelligible  explanations  of  passages  of  Scripture,  attempted 
by  «  Amicus,''  is  that  the  subject  of  discussion  is  one,  on  which 
we  do  not  consider  ourselves  authorized  to  reason  or  dispute  ; 
a  subject  which  neither  he  nor  we,  nor  any  finite  being  is  ca- 
pable of  explaining  or  comprehending.  This  we  are  plainly 
taught  by  the  passage,  which  we  have  just  cited.  Dr.  Dwight 
in  writing  on  this  subject,  says  :  Were  my  body  so  large,  that 
I  could  sweep  all  the  fixed  stars,  visible,  from  this  world,  in  a 
clear  night,  and  grasp  them  in  the  hollow  of  my  hand ;  and 
were  my  soul  capacious  in  proportion  to  so  vast  a  body,  1 
should,  notwithstanding,  be  infinitely  too  narrow-minded  to 
conceive  the  wisdom  of  God,  when  he  formed  a  fly ;  and  ho\^ 
then  should  I  think  of  conceiving  of  himself?  No;  this  is  the 
highest  of  all  impossibilities.  His  very  lowest  work  checks  and 
represses  my  vain  contemplations.  When  we  think  of  God  in 
this  light,  w  e  can  easily  conceive  it  possible,  that  there  may  be 
a  Trinity  of  persons  in  his  nature."  We  leave  it  then  to  the 
presumptuous,  to  men  puffed  with  pride  of  intellect,  with  high 
opinions  of  their  mental  capacities  and  endowments,  to  attempt 
in  vain  to  pry  into  and  explain  subjects  that  must  ever  be  my- 
steries to  man  in  his  present  state  of  existence.  Secret  things 
belong  unto  the  Lord  ;''  and  we  are  willing  that  they  should. 
It  is  enough  for  us  to  ascertain  facts  and  doctrines,  and  to  have 
a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  the  truth  of  them.  It  is  enough 
for  us  to  adore,  admire  and  praise  the  mystery  revealed. 

To  the  received  opinions  of  men  about  the  plainest  things 


38^ 


in  nature,  almost  enOless  objections  may  be  made,  and  diffi- 
culties  proposed.  A  fool  may  ask  a  wise  man  a  thousand  ques- 
tions, which  he  cannot  answer.  Still  the  objections,  the  diffi- 
culties  and  unanswered  questions  have  no  effect  in  disturbing 
men's  belitf  of  well  known  facts  and  well  ascertained  truths. 
It  appears  strange  to  us  then,  that  any  man  of  sense  would 
pique  himself  upon  making  objections  and  starting  difficulties, 
till  he  wearies  out  the  patience  of  his  readers.  The  only  cir- 
cumstances that  reconcile  us  to  our  conduct,  in  following  and 
answering  <*  Amicus"  so  far  in  his  objections,  are,  that  in  con- 
sequence of  it,  he  has  more  fully  disclosed  his  errors,  and  wc 
Jiave  evinced  our  capacity  to  answer  all  his  objections  and  re- 
fute all  his  arguments  that  have  any  show  of  reason  or  force. 
These  ends  being  accomplished,  we  pledge  ourselves  that,  un- 
less we  change  our  sentiments  we  will  not  in  future  weary  our 
readers  by  following  "  Amicus"  through  his  endless  specula- 
tions, refinements  and  sophistical  objections  and  arguments, 
but  will  confine  ourselves  as  much  as  possible  to  a  connected 
and  plain  statement  and  refutation  of  your  doctrines  and  opi- 
nions that  yet  remain  to  be  discussed,  and  to  a  succinct  and 
conclusive  defence  of  the  truth. 

We  are  not  willing  to  admit  the  ipse  dixit  of  Amicus,"  (his 
mere  say  so)  that  Dr.  Watts  abandoned  Trinitarian  sentiments. 
But  if  it  is  true,  as  he  states,  that  the  Doctor  did  so,  three 
years  before  his  deatli,  we  still  claim  him  as  a  Trinitarian, 
Dr.  Watts  lived  to  a  very  advanced  age.  Now,  it  is  often  said, 
and  with  truth  too,  of  a  man  when  he  is  very  old,.  **  He  is  no 
longer  himself ;"  Dr.  Watts  then  at  the  time  «  Amicus"  men- 
tions was  not  Dr.  Watts,  he  was  not  himself.  In  answer  to  the 
observation  of  **  Amicus"  upon  1  John  v.  7,  we  reply,  that 
there  are  men  who  possess  as  great  <«  candor  and  learning"  as 
he,  who  insist  on  the  geniiiness  of  the  passage.  We  do  not  say 

pretension"  as  he  does,  for  really  we  think  he  makes  as  high 
and  arrogant  pretensions  as  any  writer  we  know.  When  room 
will  admit,  we  shall  give  our  proofs  of  the  authenticity  of  this 
disputed  passage,  and  we  have  no  doubt  but  we  will  satisfy  the 
impartial,  that  it  is  authentic. 

Our  design  in  this  number  is  to  state,  in  as  clear  and  plain 
a  manner  as  we  can,  the  difference  of  opinicm  that  appears 
from  the  present  state  of  the  discussion  to  exist  between 
^«  Amicus"  and  us,  in  relation  to  the  nature  and  essential  sub- 
sistence of  the  divine  Being;  and  to  advance  some  additional 
plain  and  conclusive  arguments  in  defence  of  our  doctrine.  He 
professes  to  believe  in  a  God  of  such  perfect  unity,  that  it  ad- 
mits of  no  real,  but  only  a  nominal  distinction.  We  profess  to 
believe  in  a  God  of  perfect  and  essential  unity,  but  such  as  ad- 


38-5 

111  its  of  a  real  and  thieefold  distinction.  We  purposely  at  pre » 
sent  omit  the  term  i  i  i..ity,  to  which  <*  Amicus"  so  invetei  atelj 
objects  as  unseriptural,  and  taive  one  which  the  Scripturt\s  cer- 
tainly authorize,  as  they  so  frequently  use  the  three  terms, 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  From  the  many  passages  whicii 
we  have  before  quoted,  and  by  which  we  clearly  prove  a  Tri- 
nity, it  is  evident  that  the  Scriptures  point  out  a  distinction  of 
three  in  tlie  Godhead,  and  it  is  obviously  a  real — not  a  mere 
nominal  distinction,  but  a  distinction  which  ascribes  a  pro- 
pert>  to  each  of  the  three  severally,  which  does  not  belong,  and 
cannot  be  communicated  to  the  others  severally.  Now  such  a 
distinction  **  Amicus"  entirely  discards.  If  the  Scriptures  in- 
tended such  an  eiuire  unity  as  be  contends  for,  would  they  so 
often  employ  terms,  which  always  in  a  popular  sense,  obviously 
imply  a  real  distinction  t  No  person  can  hear  the  terms,  Father 
and  Son,  sending  and  sent,  one  being  with  another,  one  loving 
and  another  beloved,  without  conceiving  of  a  real  distinction. 
Now  these  and  similar  terms  of  distinction  are  applied  fre- 
quently in  the  Scriptures  to  what  we  call  the  three  persons  in 
the  Godhead.  We  call  them  persons,  because  in  the  Scriptures 
the  personal  pnmouns,  I,  Thou,  and  He,  are  uniformly  applied 
to  them.  The  Father  aiwl  the  Son  speaking  to  each  other,  say 
thou ;  and  they  and  the  Holy  Ghost  speaking  of  one  another, 
use  the  pronouns  He  and  They  ;  and  the  Scriptures  in  speaking 
of  the  three  separately,  always  use  the  pronoun  He.  Now  what 
other  than  a  perscm  can  you  conceive  speaking  to  and  of  another 
in  sucii  language — language  uniformly  considered  and  called 
personal.  Now  let  *^  Amicus,"  from  the  seat  of  decision  which 
he  has  proudly  and  presumptuously  erected  for  himself,  pro- 
nounce the  sentence  of  "  absurdity,  inconsistency."  &c.  Still  it 
must  be  admitted  that  God  is  best  acquainted  with  his  own 
nature  and  essence,  and  consequently  knows  best  what  terms 
are  properly  and  consistently  applied  to  his  chai'acter  or  mode 
of  subsistence.  Let  Amicus"  then  beware  lest  he  pronounce 
that  absurd  and  inconsistent,  which  God  himself  has  sanction- 
ed ;  and  lest  he  incur  the  guilt,  and  fall  under  the  awful  con- 
demnation of  blasphemy.  We  finding  the  Scriptures  iinifornily 
and  obviously  holding  out  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  Godhead, 
believe,  and  insist  upon  it,  that  there  is  such  a  distinction. 
But  <*  Amicus"  entirely  rejects  the  distinction  and  utterly  con- 
founds all  the  distinguishing  terms,  which  the  Scriptures  are 
80  careful  to  use.  Christ  is  called  Mediator.  Now  Mediator  ne- 
cessarily implies  parties  to  be  reconciled,  and  a  distinct  person 
who  reconciles  the  parties.  The  Apostle  informs  us  that  the 
parties  in  this  case  are  God  and  men,  and  that  the  Mediator  is 
Christ.  If  nothing  but  unity  in  every  sense  is  adinirttd,  where 
49 


will  a  Mediator  be  found  ?  for  a  Mediator  must  be  distinct  from 
the  parties.  You  will  not  say  that  a  mere  name  can  be  the  Me- 
diator, the  Reconciler  !  Then  the  reconciliation  would  be  only 
nominal,  not  real ;  and  all  men  would  be  yet  in  their  sins,  un- 
reconciled, and  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation  and  death. 
Awful  thought !  Upon  this  plain  statement  of  the  case  we 
appeal  to  candor,  common  sense  and  impartiality,  whether 

Amicus"  or  we  have  adopted  the  Scriptural  sentiment,  C(m- 
cerning  the  divine  character  or  mode  of  subsistence.  We  adopt 
an  opinion  that  embraces  a  threefold  distinction,  a  distinction 
uniformly,  and  every  where  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures.  He 
entirely  rejects  all  real  distinction,  and  in  defiance  of  the  most 
plain  and  distinctive  Scriptural  terms. 

We  proceed  now  to  prove  the  truth  of  our  doctrine  by  argu- 
ments derived  from  the  Scriptures,  from  facts  and  history  com- 
bined. We  have  heretofore  taken  our  proofs  wholly  from  the 
Scriptures.  We  now  call  to  our  aid  facts,  which  are  almost  the 
only  proper  instruments  for  such  short-sighted,  finite  creatures 
as  we  are,  to  wield  in  argument.  We  know  little  else  than  fact. 
"We  are  totally  unacquainted  with  the  nature  or  essence  of  the 
smallest  thing  in  creation.  How  then  can  we  presume  to  under- 
stand or  explain  the  essence  of  the  great  Creator  of  all  things. 
No  doubt  when  we  speak  of  facts  "  Amicus"  will  apply  to  them 
Lis  favourite  term,  gross.  And  doubtless  they  will  prove  too 
gross,  stubborn  and  unwieldy  for  him.  Refining  appears  to  be 
his  chief  talent.  But  we  rejoice  for  truth's  sake  that  scepticism 
and  mysticism  with  all  their  ingenuity  have  never  yet  invented 
an  alembic  that  can  refine  away  facts.  Let  them  put  them  into 
their  hottest  crucible,  they  w  ill  still  to  their  great  mortification 
come  out  stubborn  facts.  These  things  premised,  we  proceed 
to  our  arguments. 

The  ancient  Jews  and  primitive  Christians  worshipped  the 
true  God. 

They  worshipped  the  Triune  God.  Therefore,  the  Triune 
God  is  the  true  God. 

Our  major  or  first  proposition  we  presume  is  admitted.  The 
minor  or  second,  perhaps,  may  be  denied.  We  must  therefore 
prove  it.  We  have  a  host  of  testimony  ;  but  have  room  to  ad- 
vance only  a  small  part.  That  the  ancient  Jews  worshipped  a 
Triune  or  three-one  God,  is  evident  from  their  verbal  declara- 
tions and  their  numerous  symbols.  The  Jewish  commentators 
say  :  "  there  are  three  degrees  in  the  mystery  of  Aleim,  or 
Elohim  ;  and  these  degrees  they  call  persons."  The  Author 
of  the  Jewish  Book,  Zohar,  thus  comments  on  these  words. 
The  Lord  and  our  God,  and  the  Lord  are  one.  The  Lord  or 
Jehovah  is  the  beginning  of  all  things,  and  the  perfection  of  all 


387 

things,  and  is  called  the  Father.    The  other  or  our  God,  is  the 
depth  or  fountain  of  sciences,  and  is  calJed  the  Son.  The 
other,  or  Lord,  He  is  the  Roly  Ghost  who  proceeds  from  thera 
both.    In  the  writings  of  Rabbi  Judah  Hakkadosh,  or  Judah 
the  holy,  there  is  this  remarkable  sentence,  declaring  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Jewish  church  in  the  most  explicit  manner  :  **  God 
the  Father,  God  the  S(m,  God  the  Holy  Spirit ;  Three  in  Unity, 
One  in  Trinity.'*    One  symbol  used  by  the  Jews  to  denote 
God,  was  a  square  enclosing  three  radii,  or  points,  disposed  in 
the  form  of  a  crown.    The  crown  seems  to  have  denoted  the 
dignity  and  supremacy  of  the  object  designed,  and  the  number 
three,  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead.    Another  symbol  was 
an  equilateral  triangle,  with  three  small  circles  at  the  angles 
and  the  letter  Jod  inscribed  over  the  upper  angle.    The  three 
sides  indicated  the  three  persons  of  the  Godhead  ,*  and  the 
equal  length  of  the  sides,  denoted  their  equality  ;  while  the 
letter  Jod  was  a  direct  proof  that  Jehovah  was  intended  by  the 
emblem.    The  three  circles  probably  denoted  the  perfection  of 
the  three  persons.  You  see  then,  how  far    Amicus"  is  correct 
in  calling  »» it  a  slander  upon  the  Jews,  to  say  that  they  held 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.'*    We  shall  now  prove  that  the  pri- 
mitive Christians  also  believed  in  a  Trinity  of  persons.  Justin 
Martyr,  one  of  the  most  ancient  of  the  Fathers,  agrees  with  us 
(says  Calvin)  in  every  point.*'    Tertullian  asks  the  question, 
and  answers  it  himself :  « How  many  persons  suppose  you 
(saith  he)  there  are  ?  As  many  as  there  are  names."  Gregory 
Nazianzcn,  speaking  of  the  Trinity,  says  :  "  1  cannot  think  of 
the  one,  but  I  am  immediately  surrounded  with  the  splendor  of 
the  three;  nor  can  I  clearly  discover  the  three,  but  I  am  sud- 
denly carried  back  to  the  one."  Here  again  we  see  how  absurd 
it  is  to  speak  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  being  a  part  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith.    It  was  believed  long 
before  that  church  existed.    We  have  now  proved  that  the  an- 
cient Jews  and  primitive  Christians  believed  in,  and  conse- 
quently worshipped  a  Triune  God.   This  was  our  minor  propo^ 
sition.    It  being  proved  true,  and  the  major  proposition  being 
granted,  the  conclusion  also  must  be  true  :  therefore,  the  Triune 
God  is  the  true  God. 

To  foretell  future  events,  belongs  unto  God.  The  fulfilment 
of  predictions  will  in  many  instances  prove  and  develope  the 
nature  and  essential  character  of  God.  This  will  appear  to  be 
the  case  with  respect  to  the  predictions  which  we  shall  now  ad^ 
duce.  God  by  the  prophet  (Isa.  li.  5)  says :  *»  The  isles  shall 
wait  upon  me,  and  on  my  arms  shall  they  trust."  Ps.  ii.  8, 
God  says  to  Christ:  "  Ask  of  me  and  I  shall  give  thee  th^ 
heathen  for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  th« 


388 


earth  for  thy  possession/'  Is.  xi.  9,  It  is  said  :  ^*  The  eartli  shall 
be  full  of  the  knowledge  of  tlie  Lord  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea." 
Is.  lii.  8,  it  is  said :  **  The  watchmen  of  Zion  shall  lift  up  the 
voice  ;  with  the  voice  together  shall  they  sing  :  for  they  shall 
'  see  eye  to  eye."  This  last  prophecy  can  never  he  fulfilled 
with  respect  to  your  society,  whilst  your  present  customs  pre- 
vail, for  you  never  sing.  M either  do  your  watchmen  hegin  to 
see  eye  to  eye  with  oti»er  watchmen,  as  those  of  other  societies 
are  beginning  to  do ;  neither  can  you  ever  do  it,  till  }ou  are 
entirely  new- modelled ;  for  you  essentially  differ  from  all 
others.  Your  society,  therefore,  can  make  no  part  of  the  mil- 
lenial  church.  At  that  happy  period,  there  shall  he  hut  one 
fold,  as  there  is  one  shepherd." 

The  predictions  which  we  have  just  cited,  are  at  present  ful- 
filling. We  shall  not  appeal  to  facts.  The  isles  of  the  sea  have 
lately  hegun  to  wait  upon  God.  Upon  what  God  do  they  wait? 
and  on  whose  arms  do  they  trust  ?  Fact  says  :  **  they  wait  upon 
the  Triune  God,  and  trust  in  his  arms."  Christ  is  now  receiving 
the  heathen  in  Asia,  Africa  and  America  for  his  inheritance. 
What  Christ  is  receiving  them?  Fact  answers:  "  Christ,  the 
second  person  in  the  adorable  Trinity  for  as  such  he  is  evtry 
where  preached  to  the  heathen  and  received  by  them.  The 
earth  is  now  beginning  to  be  filled  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
Lord.  With  the  knowledge  of  what  Lord  ?  Fact  replies  :  '*  With 
the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  whom  the  Trinitarians  preach  and 
worship,  for  the  Trinitarians  arc  the  only  persons  who  are  car- 
rying the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  to  different  parts  of  the  earth. 
Can  God  only  predict  ? — does  the  fulfilment  of  predictions  prove 
the  true  God  ? — and  do  facts  universally  testify  that  the  predic- 
tions now  fulfilling  prove  God  to  be  Triune  ?  then  the  Triune 
God  must  be  the  true  God.  Surely,  the  only  living  and  true 
God,^  who  abominates  idolatry  as  the  highest  crime,  and  speaks 
against  false  gods  in  tlic  severest  language,  would  not  predict 
events  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  fulfilment  of  them  would 
prove  the  existence  of  three  Gods,  and  consequently  false  gods* 
But  God  has  predicted  events,  the  fulfilment  of  w  hich  uniformly 
results  in  the  proof  of  a  Triune  God  ;  tiierefore  a  Triune  God 
cannot  be  three  Gods. 

Again  ;  take  a  view'of  other  facts.  What  but  a  special  Pro- 
vidence could  be  the  cause  of  the  stupendous  movements  which 
have  lately  taken  place,  and  still  continue  throughout  Christen- 
dom ?  Nothing  but  the  infinite  wisdom  and  omnipotent  arm  of 
Jehovah  could  have  devised  and  set  in  motion  the  vast,  complex, 
yet  harmonious  and  well  regulated  machinery  of  Bible,  Mis- 
sionary and  Tract  Societies  and  Sabbath  schools,  which  is  now 
actively  and  successfully  engaged  in  disseminating  the  Word 


SS9 

of  truth  and  of  life,  among  all  classes  in  society — in  instructing 
the  ignorant — reclaiming  the  vicious — conv  erting  the  heathen — 
and  thus  gloriously  preparing  the  wa>  for  the  luillenial  ad- 
vent of  Christ,  and  the  ushering  in  of  the  latter-day  ghiry  of 
Zion.  These  associations  are  coniposed  of  various  denomina- 
tions, which  till  lately  were  violently  opposed  to  each  other,  and 
held  no  social  intercourse,  and  none  but  that  God  who  turneth 
the  hearts  of  men  as  the  rivers  of  water  are  turned,  could  liave 
turned  so  many  jarring  hearts  into  the  same  channel,  and  unit- 
ed them  as  the  heart  of  one  man. 

Truly,  «*  tliis  is  the  Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our 
eyes."  Now  all  these  associations  are  composed  of  those  who 
worship  the  Triune  God,  and  leach  and  inculcate  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  as  an  essential  doctrine  of  Cliristianity.  Is  there 
a  God  in  the  heavens  ?  and  does  he  sway  an  omnipotent  sceptre 
over  the  hearts  and  actions  of  men?  and  will  he  suffer  his 
glory  to  be  given  to  another  r  Nay,  will  he  come  out  of  his 
place — make  bare  his  arm  so  that  every  eye  that  is  not  blind 
must  see  that  it  is  his  arm — and  exercise  a  special  Providence 
so  that  his  glory  should  be  given  to  others,  to  three  Gods  ! ! !  No, 
this  is  impossible*  But  facts  declare,  that  God  has  exerciscci 
a  special  Providence,  which  gives  a  large  tribute  of  glory  to 
the  Triune  God,  therefore  the  Triune  God  is  not  another  God, 
«  for  God  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another." 

Again  ;  turn  your  attention  to  the  astonishing,  numerous  and 
extensive  revivals  of  religion  which  are  taking  place  in  our 
land  and  in  our  day :  and  in  these  you  have  another  fact  to 
prove  the  truth  of  our  doctrine.  It  is  unnecessary  to  inform 
you  that  these  are  all  amongst  Trinitarians.    To  speak  of  a 

revival  of  religion  amongst  Unitarians,  or  amongst  F  s 

would  make  every  body  stare — would  make  themselves  look 
aghast  !  Did  the  miraculous  conversion  of  three  thousand  by 
the  preaching  of  Peter,  prove  that  he  preached  true  doctrine  ! 
Surely  the  conversion  of  thousands  now  by  the  preaching  of 
Trinitarians,  must  prove  also  that  they  preach  the  true  doc- 
trine. The  conversion  of  sinners  is  the  work  of  God,  and  God 
will  not  set  his  seal  to  a  lie.  Did  the  miraculous  healing  of  na- 
tural diseases^  and  raising  the  dead,  prove  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  and  the  divinity  of  the  doctrines  which  the  Apostles 
taught  ^  Will  not  then  the  healing  of  moral  diseases  and  rais- 
ing from  the  death  of  sin,  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Agent,  and 
of  the  doctrines  which  are  made  the  instruments  ?  Trinitarians 
preach  their  doctrines,  and  the  morally  diseased  are  healed, 
the  vicious  are  reclaimed — the  drunkard  made  sober — the  pro- 
fane made  pious — and  thousands  that  were  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins  are  raised  to  spiritual  life.    Ask  them  who  healed 


390 


them  and  raised  them  from  the  dead,  and  what  doctrines  were 
the  instruments ;  and  they  will  answer  the  Triune  God,  and  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinitarians.  We  defy  the  Unitarians  to  pro- 
duce such  testimony  to  the  truth  of  their  doctrines.  Who  ever 
heard  of  their  doctrines  reforming  the  vicious,  or  reclaiming 
the  profligate  ?  We  have  often  known  them  to  have  the  contra- 
ry effect. 

Facts  crowd  upon  facts.  Obstinate  must  be  the  unbelief, 
inflexible  the  scepticism,  which  does  not  blush  and  yield ! ! ! 
Until  «  Amicus'*  is  able  to  counteract  the  most  plain,  forcible 
and  plenary  testimony — to  shut  our  eyes  and  close  our  ears — to 
reasim  people  out  of  their  senses — is  able  to  refine  facts  into 
non-entities,  and  realities  into  phantoms,  he  will  be  unable  to 
prove  our  doctrine  either  false,  absurd,  inconsistent  or  contra- 
dictory. Facts  crowd  upon  facts.  Go  to  the  awakened  and 
convinced  of  sin — to  the  contrite  in  spirit  and  wounded  in  heart, 
who  have  been  healed  and  comforted — go  to  the  beds  of  the  sick 
and  dying,  and  ask  them  :  who  awakened  and  convinced  them 
of  sin — who  healed  and  comforted  them — who  C(msoled  them  in 
sickness,  and  attuned  their  dying  lips  with  the  song  of  victory 
over  death  and  the  grave :  and  they  will  all  answer  with  one 
voice ;  The  Holy  Spirit  the  Comforter,  and  Christ  the  Re- 
deemer, two  persons  in  the  adorable  Trinity.  Hark  !  hark  ! 
The  citizens  of  the  New  Jerusalem  are  chaunting  their  doxolo- 
gies  to  the  Triune  God,  saying :  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord,  God 
Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come."  Hallelujah  from 
the  ancient  Jews  and  primitive  Christians,  from  isles  and  con- 
tinents, and  from  the  whole  true  church,  to  the  Triune  God. 
The  living,  the  dying  Christians  upon  earth,  saints  and  angels 
in  heaven  are  singing  :  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  it  was  in  the  beginning,  is  now, 
and  shall  be  evermore,  world  without  end.  Amen."  PAUL. 

Seventh-day,  9th  mo.  21,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXVI. 

He  disappointeth  the  devices  of  the  crafty,  so  that  their  hands 
cannot  perform  their  enterprises — they  meet  with  darkness  in 
the  day  time,  and  grope  in  the  noon  day  as  in  the  night,''  Job 

V.  12, 13, 14.  "  He  made  a  pit  and  digged  it,  and  is  fallen 

into  the  ditch  which  he  made.''  Psalm  vii.  15. 

Under,  1  trust,  a  proper  sense  of  the  weight  and  importance 
of  the  subject  which  has  for  some  weeks  engaged  our  attention, 


391 


Amicus  was  not  hasty  to  enter  on  the  discussion  of  it*  He  was 
aware  of  the  force  of  deep  rooted  prejudices — he  was  not  igno- 
rant that  it  had  engaged  and  divided  men  of  the  greatest  talents 
and  learning  of  different  religious  denominations ;  and  had  little 
expectation  that  from  either  of  these  sources  any  new  matter 
could  be  brought  to  illustrate  it.   It  was  not,  therefore,  until 

Paul"  in  the  most  indecent  and  vaunting  style,  repeatedly 
dared  me  to  the  conflict,  that  1  ventured  to  enter  the  list  with 
him  !  I  had  not  the  least  doubt  that  our  doctrine  was  true,  that 
it  could  be  defended  by  the  plainest  testimony  of  the  inspired 
writers — I  was  satisfied  that  our  Lord,  from  whom  there  should 
be  no  appeal,  had  expressly  taught  it — 1  knew  I  had  both  rea- 
son and  revelation  on  my  side — yet,  I  had  doubts  of  my  capacity 
to  do  justice  to  the  subject ;  and,  under  a  due  sense  of  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  engagement,  1  very  sincerely  wished  it  had 
fallen  into  abler  hands. 

Our  readers  may  suppose,  from  the  specimen  of  his  talents 
which  **PAUii"  had  given  the  public,  that  Amicus  had  nothing 
to  fear  in  the  contest,  when  truth  was  on  his  side  !  But  it  should 
be  recollected,  that  I  had  to  contend  with  a  projessed  theolo- 
gian! — with  one  who  had  served  a  regular  apprenticeship  to 
the  trade,  whose  life  had  been  devoted  to  polemical  divinity  ! — 
And  how  could  a  layman  tell  with  what  mighty  weapons  such  a 
champion  mi^ht  be  furnished  from  the  redoubtable  magazine  of 
A  COLLEGE  !  And  then,  as  in  his  xxixth  Letter,  to  see  him 
like  the  gigantic  Philistine  brandishing  his  arms,  and  defying 
me  to  the  combat ! — Was  it  not  terrible  ?  Let  my  reader  only 
turn  to  that  Letter,  and  place  himself  for  a  moment  in  the  situ- 
ation of  Amicus,  and  then  say  whether  1  had  not  some  cause 
for  diffidence. 

But  the  conflict  is  over — the  enemy  has  done  his  worst — and, 
as  might  have  been  reasonably  expected,  has  shown  himself  as 
weak  in  the  field  as  he  was  confident  in  the  cabinet ! !  !  It  is 
always  a  bad  sign  to  see  a  boasting  disposition  at  the  beginning 
of  a  contest ;  it  generally  indicates  ignorance  or  presumption, 
and  is  the  common  harbinger  of  defeat. 

Let  our  readers  now  review  the  different  essays  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  ''Trinity  — let  them  read  them  attentively,  and 
see,  if  the  great  mass  of  evidence  which  Amicus  adduced  in 
support  of  our  doctrine,  does  not  remain  untouched  by  my  op- 
ponent! The  plainest  Scripture  text — the  most  conclusive  rea- 
soning— the  fairest  deductions  from  premises  conceded,  all  lie 
at  his  door  unanswered,  and  as  I  suppose,  unanswerable!  He 
has  been  left  with  his  brethren,  where  indeed  they  have  placed 
themselves,  on  the  ground  of  TRITHEISM.  It  has  been  re- 
peatedly and  irrefutably  proved,  from  the  positions  and  conces*. 


sions  of  my  opponents,  that  TRINITARIAMSM  and  TUI- 
THEISMare  only  different  names  Ibr  the  same  thin.^. — That 
they  are  indentified  as  the  same  religion,  and  must  stand  or 
fall  together!  I  know  very  well  that  tne  Irinirarians  acknow- 
ledge the  unity  of  the  deity »  It  the>  did  not,  nothing  could  shield 
them  from  the  charge  of  IDOLATRY  !  but  what  signific  s  a 
profession  that  God  is  one,  when  they  at  the  same  time  assert 
Ife  is  thee?  What  avails  an  acknowledgement  of  his  tmity  when 
t4iey  contend  for  his  pturality  ! 

Now  in  wliat  a  miji**rable  predicament  do  my  opponents  stand! 
TRUTH  has  <•  disappointed  the  devices  of  the  crafty,  so  that 
their  hands  cannot  perform  their  entcrprizes they  have 

made  a  pit  and  digged  it,  and  are  fallen  into  the  ditch  which 
they  have  made." 

In  my  last  I  stated,  that  "  I  hoped  in  my  present  opponent, 
to  find  an  antagonist  prepared  to  meet  me  on  the  ground  of 
argument — to  discuss  any  point  relating  to  a  doctrine"  which  he 
tells  us  *<  is  very  important,  and  ought  to  be  well  understood." 
I  again  opened  the  door  for  a  fair  discussion  of  the  points  in 
controvei*sy.  I  hoped  that  a  regard  for  his  character,  if  not 
for  his  doctrine,  would  induce  him  to  come  from  behind  his 
liiding  place,  and  shew  himself  a  manly  combatant  for  his 
faith.  But  I  have  been  again  disappointed  !  He  shrouds  him- 
self in  MYSTERY.  He  tells  ns  he  « leaves  it  to  tlie  pre- 
sumptuous  ;  to  men  puffed  up  with  the  pride  of  intellect,  ith 
high  opinions  of  their  mental  capacities  and  endowments,  to 
explain  subjects,  which  must  ever  be  mysteries  to  man  in  his 
present  state  of  existence."  What  a  pity  it  is  that  he  did 
not  think  of  this  before  he  challenged  Amicus,  in  the  pre- 
sumptuous" manner  of  his  xxixth  Letter ! !  !  What  a  pity  it 
is,  that  his  own  «  pride  of  intellect" — his  *<high  opinion  of  his 
own  mental  capacities  and  endowments"  did  not  prevent  him 
from  exposing  his  own  weakness,  and  the  absurdity  of  his 
doctr*ine,  in  a  contest,  from  which  he  now  so  shamefully  shrinks 
behind  an  assumed  veil  of  humility  ! ! ! — It  appears,  however, 
that  humility,  like  gold,  *<  may  come  a  day  too  late." 

Now  only  admit  for  a  moment,  that  doctrines  which  cannot 
be  understood — that  points  which  are  contrary  to  reason,  are  to 
be  embraced  as  articles  of  faith,  and  which,  like  the  absurdities 
of  the  ATHANASIAN  CREED,  are  to  be  believed  under  the 
pain  of  eternal,  hopeless,  irremediable  torment — and  where 
then  is  the  Gospel  professor  placed  ? — Unable  to  steer  his  own 
course  through  the  LABYRINTH  of  MYSTERY,  he  must 
necessarily  have  a  conductor  !  and,  I  assert  it  on  the  ground  of 
universal  experience,  and  can  maintain  it  on  the  authority  of 
authentic  history,  that  religious  professors,  under  such  circum- 


( 

393 

stances,  have  ever  been  the  prey  of  an  avaricious  priesthood^ 
the  slaves  or  vassals  of  a  mercenar}'  clergy  ! ! 

It  therefore  appears,  that  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Trinity"  is 
not  only  at  war  with  the  plainest  Scripture  truth,  but  is 
equally  hostile  to  our  civil  and  religious  liberty.  And  it  is  a  re- 
markable fact,  confirmed  by  all  Ecclesiastical  history^  that 
from  the  moment  this  doctrine  was  introduced,  the  peace,  the 
harmony,  and  freedom  of  the  church  began  rapidly  to  decline, 
and  continued  to  decline,  until  she  became  involved  in  the  gross- 
est darkness,  and  subjected  to  the  most  intolerant  and  merci- 
less tyranny,  that  ever  was  exhibited  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ! ! ! 

My  opponent  in  his  last  Letter  has  recurred  to  a  hackneyed 
argument  of  the  Trinitarians, — their  dernier  resort,  their  forlorn 
hope — their  refuge  when  every  other  refuge  fails  ! — As  this 
seems  to  be,  in  their  view,  an  important  fortification,  my  reader 
will  excuse  me  if  I  employ  a  few  moments  in  exposing  its  weak- 
ness. The  argument  may  be  briefly  stated  in  the  following 
manner : — God  is  an  injtnite  Being,  a  finite  creature  can 
never  comprehend  him.'^  Now  the  truth  of  this  position  is  ad- 
mitted. Amicus  has  never  denied  it,  either  in  theory  or  prac- 
tice ! — But  gentle  readier,  mark  the  sophistical  consequences 
they  draw  from  the  premises !  "  M  we  cannot  fully  comprehend 
the  deity,  therefore  we  must  believe  contradictory  propositions  con^ 
cerning  him! — As  we  cannot  **  find  out  the  Almighty  to  perfec- 
tion," therefore  we  can  have  no  certain  knowledge  of  him  ! !  !'* 
Can  any  thing  be  more  contrary  to  Scripture  or  reason,  than 
these  conclusions?  They  may  blear  the  eyes  of  the  ignorant^ 
but  with  a  discerning  public  can  only  serve  to  show  the  weak- 
ness of  their  cause,  and  to  consign  to  merited  oblivion  a  doc- 
trine, which  is  equally  repugnant  to  Scripture  and  reason  ! 

Now  I  would  ask,  if  we  can  have  no  certain  knowledge  of 
the  Deity,  why  did  our  Lord  say :  **  I  bis  is  life  eternal,  that 
they  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent  ?"  John  xvii.  3.  Why  did  he  make  eternal  life  to 
depend  on  a  knowledge  that  could  never  be  attained  i — Our 
opponent's  conclusion  would  involve  our  Lord  in  an  absurdity  ! ! ! 

"  Paul"  dissecting  a  text,  tells  us:  •* secret  things  belong 
unto  the  Lord ;"  but  let  us  hear  what  immediately  follows: 

the  things  that  are  revealed,  belong  unto  us  and  to  our  chil- 
dren forever."  Deut.  xxix.  19.  Now  that  GOD  IS  A  <*  HOLY 
ONE"  and  not  a  HOLY  THREE,  is  a  truth  as  clearly  reveal- 
ed in  the  sacred  volume  as  any  other.  His  divine  attributes 
of  goodness — mercy — love — light — power — wisdom  and  truth, 
are  also  revealed  to  us  : — and  we  have  unquestionable  evidence 
of  his  immensity,  eternity,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence  ! 
The  question  is  not  whether  we  can  comprehend  these  attri- 
50 


394 


butes.  It  is  admitted  that  "  man  in  his  present  state  of  existence 
never  can  fully  comprehend  ihem."  The  only  question  that  can 
have  any  weight  in  the  present  discussion,  is, — Whether  they 
contradict  our  reason  ?  1  presume  no  one  will  assert  that  they 
do !  But,  that  God  subsists  in  three  distinct  and  separate 
divine  persons,  each  having  his  own  distinct,  intelligent  nature," 
is  a  position  that  contradicts  both  reason  and  revelation.  It  is 
downright  TRITHEISM,  and  ought  to  be  rejected  by  every 
reierent  believer  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  expressly 
teach  us,  that  "  Jehovah  is  one,  and  his  name  one,"  and  that 
He  is  the    Only  wise  God  our  Saviour." 

I  win  now  briefly  notice  some  of  the  remarks,  I  cannot  say 
arguments,  of  my  opponent ;  for  his  whole  address  abounds 
-with  bare  unsupported  assei  tions  :  *•  his  mere  say  so,"  and  is, 
1  think,  the  most  puerile  attempt  to  support  a  sinking  cause, 
that  has  lately  met  the  public  eye  ! 

<^  It  is  enough,"  says  he,  for  us  to  ascertain  facts  and  doc- 
trines ;  and  to  have  a  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  for  the  truth  of 
them."  By  this  sentence  he  would  have  his  reader  believe, 
that  there  was  in  the  Bible  some  such  text  as  this :  *«  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,"  /  subsist  in  three  distinct  and  separate  persons, 
between  whom  there  is  a  real  distinction^  a  distinction  which  as- 
cribes a  property  to  each  of  the  three  severally,  which  does  not  be- 
long and  cannot  be  communicated  to  the  others  severally — 1  am  a 
God  of  perfect  andessentiaH  unity  ^  yet  not  such  an  entire  unity 
but  that  my  parts  subsist  separately — and  these  parts  or  persons, 
have  each  distinct  and  separate  offices  in  perform  in  the  manage- 
ment of  my  concerns."  Now  what  a  low  attempt  is  this  to  im- 
pose on  his  reader?  Does  he  suppose  the  public  are  like  a  well 
managed  priest-ridden  congregation,  who  will  take  for  granted 
any  thing  the  Parson  says?  Knowing  as  he  does,  that  the  terms 
which  express  his  Tritheistical  doctrine  are  not  to  be  found  in 
the  Bible,  he  would  nevertheless  make  us  believe  that  he 
had  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  the  support  of  his  scheme  ! ! ! 

Again,  he  says  :  «It  is  enough  for  us  to  adore,  admire,  and 
praise  the  mystery  revealed.'^  Here  he  tells  us  the  mystery  is 
revealed;  and  in  the  same  paragraph  declares:  «« it  must  ever 
be  a  mystery  to  man  in  his  present  state  of  existence" — that 

neither  he  (Amicus)  nor  we,  nor  any  finite  being,  is  capable 
of  comprehending  it'* ! ! ! — To  admire  at  such  a  «<  mystery  re- 
vealed," is  very  natural ! — to  adore  and  praiseit,  must  be  a  pie- 
ty like  that  of  the  Athenians,  who  erected  an  altar"  TO  THE 
UNKNOWN  GOD;  whom  therefore"  said  the  Apostle  ye 
ignorantly  worship."    Acts.  xvii.  23. 

Again  "  Paul"  says  :  «  It  appears  strange  to  us  that  any  man 
of  sense  would  pique  himself  upon  making  objections,  and  start- 


395 


ing  difficulties,  till  he  wearies  out  the  patience  of  his  readers.*' 
Very  strange  indeed !  But  how  unaccountable  must  it  have 
been  to  the  Papists,  when  tho  Reformers  piqued  themselves 
upon  making  objoctions  to  the  worship  of  images — the  granting 
of  indulgences,  &c.— and  when  they  started  difficulties  to  the 
mystery  of  Transubstantiation,  till  they  wearied  the  patience  of 
their  readers ! ! !  Was  it  not  intolerable  ?  Now  Amicus  had  the 
simplicity  to  suppose,  it  was  the  duty  of  an  opponent  to  make 
objections,  and  start  difficulties  to  doctrines  which  he  consider- 
ed anti-christian  and  unscripturaL  He  also  supposed  it  was  the 
place  of  those,  who  vauntingly  broached  the  subject,  to  answer 
objections,  and  try  to  remove  difficulties.  But  it  seems  they 
prefer  to  let  them  remain  in  the  way!  No  doubt  they  have  good 
reasons  for  such  a  preference  ! 

Yet  "  Paul"  tells  us,  that  the  objections,  the  difficulties, 
and  unanswered  questions,  have  no  etfpct  in  disturbing  men's 
belief  of  well  known  fads,  and  well  ascertained  truths,*^ — Grant- 
ed. But  what  then? — Does  it  follow  that  « objections,  and 
difficulties,  and  unanswered  questions  will  have  no  effect  to 
disturb  men's  belief"  in  whimsical  theories^  absurd  doctrines, 
and  contradictory  propositions  ?  If  •*  Paui,"  should  be  so  cnedu- 
lous  as  to  hope  they  will  have  no  such  effect,  his  hope  will  be 
like  that  of  the  hypocrite,  which  perisheth  !  *<  Truth  is  great 
and  will  prevail." — She  has  pointed  to  the  doctrine  of  a  «*  plu- 
ral God,'*  as  the  contrivance  of  fallible  men  ;  and  thousands  of 
the  most  enlightened  Christians  are  convinced,  that  it  is  hos- 
tile to  the  vie\^  of  the  inspired  penmen,  and  equally  inconsist- 
ent with  sound  reason  !  It  lies  among  the  dregs  of  popery 
and  as  the  light  of  truth  prevails,  the  members  of  Christ  will 
cleanse  the  church  from  this  corrupt  inv^'ntion  of  antiehrist. 
Free  inquiry  and  a  perfect  toleration  of  religion  are  deadly  foes 
to  ERROR :  hence,  as  might  have  been  expt^cted,  in  every 
country  where  the  blessings  of  religious  liberty  are  extended, 
Trinitarianism  is  on  the  wane  ! — In  some  places,  so  many  have 
deserted  the  blood-stained  standard  of  saint  Athanasius,  as  to 
threaten  him  with  perfect  desolation  ! ! ! 

To  what  miserable  arguments — to  what  flimsy  means,  do  fhe 
Athanasians  resort  for  tho  support  of  this  t<»ttering  standard  !  I 
will  now  notice  a  few  of  them,  and  endeavour  to  shew  their 
"weakness. 

1st.  We  are  told,  that  unless  we  admit  the  division  of  the 
Deity  into  three  parts,  we  can  have  no  Mediator — no  Reeon- 
cih^r  ! — that  *'  a  Mediator  must  be  distinct  from  the  parties," 
otherwise  reconciliation  would  be  only  nommaZ,"  that  is,  that 
«  God."  who  "  was  in  Christ,  r?  coticiUn^*;  the  w.)rld  unto  him- 
self," was  only  a  nominal  reconciler — of  course  like  the  God  of 


396 

Trinitarians,  as  described  by  «  Paul,"  a  Jiniief  unsubstantial, 
unreal  God  /  Tlie  doctrine  of  my  opponent  leads  us  to  the  fur- 
ther conclusion,  that  God,  the  ever  blessed  fountain  of  mercy, 
cannot  be  reconciled  to  a  repenting  sinner,  unless  some  "  dis- 
tinct and  separate  person'  step  in  between  them  as  a  procuring 
cause  of  pardon  ! — that  He  is  an  implacable,  merciless  kind  of 
JBeing,  who  cannot  forgive  his  erring  children  ! — that  He  must 
have  satisfaction  for  every  debt,  to  the  "  uttermost  farthing! ! 
Now  I  freely  confess,  that  these  views  are  utterly  repugnant 
to  ours.  We  cannot  make  a  compassionate  Creator  worse  than 
that  <*  wicked  servant,"  who  had  no  compassion  on  his  fellow, 
and  was  therefore  delivered  to  the  tormentors.  Matt,  xviii. 
32,  33,  34.  We  believe,  that  Christ,  the  only  means  of  sal- 
vaticm,  is  God's  free  gift  to  man  , — is  the  fruit  of  his  own  im- 
measurable mercy  : — is  his  own  blessed  spirit  manifested  to 
the  souls  of  his  rational  family,  for  their  reconciliation  and  re- 
demption :  **  For  God  so  loved  the  fVdrldf  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him,  should  not  pe- 
rish, but  have  everlasting  life.'*  John  iii.  16.  «*  Upon  this 
plain  statement  of  the  case,  f  appeal  to  candor,  common  sense, 
and  impartiality,  whether  we  have  not  adopted  the  Scriptural 
sentiment  concerning  the  divine  character,*' — and  also,  whether 
the  doctrine  of  my  opponent  does  not  degrade  the  God  of  love, 
below  the  character  of  the  ungrateful  and  wicked  servant, 
whose  conduct  w  as  so  severely  censured  by  our  blessed  Lord !  ! ! 

2d.  Our  opponent  tells  us  that "  no  person  can  hear  the  terms, 
father  and  Son,  sending  and  being  sent — One  being  with  an- 
other— One  loving  Sind  another  beloved,  without  Conceiving  of  a 
real  distinction;^'  and  yet  our  Lord  himself  tells  us  distinctly, 
that  •*  he  that  seeth  me,  seeth  him  that  sent  me.''  John  xii.  45 — 
He  that  believeth  on  me,  believeth  not  on  me,  but  on  him 
that  sent  me,"  John  xii.  44?. — "  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath 
seen  the  Father,"  John  xiv.  9. — "  I  and  my  Father  are  owe." 
John  X.  30.  Now  it  seems  our  Lord  himself  cannot  satisfy 
these  captious  Trinitarians  !  they  are  so  rivited  to  the  opinions 
of  saint  Athanasius,  that  even  Christ  cannot  root  out  their  car- 
nal notions,  nor  convince  j;hem  that  the  terms- Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  when  referred  to  the  JDeity,  mean  the  same  thing  !  1 1 
That  there  is  a  personal  distinction  between  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  and  **  God"  who  "  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world 
unto  himself,"  may  easily  be  conceived  ;  and  that  this  distinc- 
Hon  may  afford  a  rational  ground  for  the  use  of  the  terms. 
Father  and  Son,  sending  and  being  sent,  loving  and  being  be- 
loved," is  very  evident ; — but  hence  to  infer,  that  God  is  divid- 
ed into  parts,  and  portioned  out  between  three  individual 


397 


persons,  appears  to  be  a  very  irrational  and  unseriptural  con- 
sequence ! 

3d.  My  opponent  now  leaves  the  ground  of  Holy  Writ,  and 
runs  to  the  Cabbalistical  doctors  for  support — first  to  rabbi 
Simeon  Ben  Joachi,  author  of  the  book  Zohar  or  Sohar,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century  ! — then  to  rabbi  Juda  Hakkadosh, 
who  according  to  Dr.  Lardner,  wrote  the  Mischnaone  hundred 
and  ninety  years  after  Christ;  though  some  learned  authors 
suppose  it  was  not  written  until  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century. 
Their  works  are  a  despicable  jumble  of  corrupt  Jewish  tradi- 
tions, with  the  pagan  philosophy  of  the  Oriental  and  Alexan- 
drian Schools ;  and  have  undoubtedly  been  enlarged  by  addi- 
tions from  the  popish  doctors.  Tliey  have  been  largely  used 
by  Maurice  in  his  **  Indian  Antiquities,"  to  whom  my  ingenious 
opponents  are  indebted  for  the  most  of  their  ridiculous  theories! 
Here  «Paui."  gets  his  notion,  that  Elohim  is  a  plural  noun,  and 
indicates  exactly  three  parts  in  the  Godhead  !  Here  he  finds  his 
wonderful  **  square  inclosing  three  radii  or  points,  disposed  in 
the  form  of  a  crown and  here  his  famous  "  equilateral  tri- 
angle, with  three  small  circles  at  the  angles,  and  the  letter 
Jod,  inscribed  over  the  upper  angle  ! ! !"  Now,  I  think,  a  mi- 
nister of  the  Gospel  must  be  painfully  pinched,  when  forced  to 
refer  to  such  a  polluted  source,  for  proofs  of  his  doctrine  !  Yet 
it  must  be  acknowledged,  that  his  doctrine  is  worthy  of  such 
proofs.  It  may  be  better  to  have  a  Cabbalistic  foi^plation  than 
none  at  all !  Well  did  our  Lord  say,  to  such  lovers  of  the  Cab- 
bala :  Ye  have  made  the  commandment  of  God  of  none  effect 
by  your  tradition."  Matt.  xv.  6. 

Now  I  would  thank  <*  Paul"  to  produce  us  one  Jewish  Trini- 
tarian author,  who  lived  before  the  Christian  era  ;  that  we  may 
have  an  opportunity  of  doing  justice  to  his  merits.  The  Tar- 
gums  of  Onkclos  and  Jonathan,  are  the  most  ancient  Jewish 
writings  extant,  the  Scriptures  excepted.  It  is  supposed  they 
were  written  before  the  advent  of  Christ.  Will "  Paul"  please 
to  tell  us  whether  they  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  :  for 
if  it  was  ever  believed  by  the  Jews,  I  think  it  probable  we 
shall  find  it  in  these  Targums  ;  which  were  expressly  written 
to  explain  their  Law  to  them,  after  their  return  from  Babylon- 
ish captivity. 

If  <*  Paul's"  *(host  of  testimony"  is  not  of  better  character 
than  his  «« advance"  guard,  it  will  be  very  easy  to  route  it. 
«  ^?ne"  little  Gospel  text  "  will  chase  a  thousand"  of  them,  "  and 
two  put  ten  thousand  to  flight."  One  single  sentence,  from 
the  lips  of  our  Lord,  is  of  more  value  than  all  the  laboured 
nonscnce  in  Maurice's  work  ! ! ! 


398 


4,th.  «  Paul"  adduces  the  sentiments  of  the  Catholic  Fathers 
to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  "  Trinity !"  I  liave  long  ago 
proved,  that  they  were  members  of  an  apostatized  church ; 
and  if  necessary  can  bring  abundant  testimony  further  to  cor- 
roborate this  truth.  I  therefore  leave  him,  with  the  advice, 
to  seek  better  witnesses  than  those  who  so  widely  departed,  in 
a  variety  of  instances,  from  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the 
primitive  church ! 

5th.  My  opponent  now  brings  to  view  the  establishment  of 
Missionary  Societies,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ! ! ! 
This  is  an  argument  of  a  new  character ! ! !  Ue  thinks  nothing 
short  of  divine  power,  could  produce  such  vast  effects ! — and 
such  effects  produced  through  the  agency  of  Trinitarians,  must 
show  that  the  Deity  is  propitious  to  the  doctrine  of  a  compound 
God  !  Now  I  may  inform  Paul,''  that  many  at  least  as  dis- 
interested as  himself,  and  perhaps  quite  as  good  judges  in  the 
case,  believe,  that  plenty  of  money  can  produce  as  great  effects 
as  these  !  One  of  your  own  writers  has  told  us  how  many  dol- 
lars it  will  take  to  evangelise  the  world  1 1 1 — The  United  States, 
paying  seven  hundred  and  forty -eigid  millions,  three  hundred  and 
twenty-three  thousand  dollars,  will,  he  tells  us,  be  our  proportion 
of  the  expence  ! !  !  Now  to  evangelize  the  world,  is  a  much 
greater  work  than  any  thing  yet  done  by  the  Trinitarians  ! 
Oh  !  the  miehty  power  of  money ! 

The  resfc  Paul's"  last  essay  is  as  singular  a  substitution 
of  ranting  tor  argument,  as  any  thing  1  have  seen  in  modern 
times.  If  any  of  his  readers  have  been  edified  by  it,  I  congra- 
tulate them  on  their  possession  of  the  valuable  faculty  of  being 
easily  pleased  ! 

I  will  close  this  essay  by  observing  that  ^<  Watts,"  whom  my 
opponent  still  claims  as  a  Trinitarian,  entirely  renounced  the 
doctrine  of  the  «  Trinity"  before  he  was  seventy  years  of  age, 
and  when  in  the  full  possession  of  his  faculties  and  mental  vi- 
gour !  as  I  have  now  in  my  possession  authentic  documents  to 
prove ;  want  of  room  only  prevents  me  from  inserting  them. 
So  that  all  the  w^eight  of  Watts'  character,  lies  against  a  doc- 
trine which  he  renounced,  after  the  fullest  investigation — after 
the  most  extensive  research,  and  a  long  experience  of  its  un- 
satisfactory nature.  AMICUS. 


399 


Saturday i  September  2^,  182- . 

LETTER  XXXVI. 

ON  THE  TRINITY. 

<^  man  that  is  an  heretic^  after  the  first  and  second  admonition 
reject ;  knowing  that  he  that  is  such  is  subverted,  and  sinneth,  be- 
ing condemned  of  himself^'    Tit.  iii.  10. 

I  HAVE  nearly  done  with  this  subject.  IVly  object  at  the  first 
was  not  to  go  into  a  full  detail  of  the  arguments  for  tlie  Trinity; 
but  to  go  just  far  enough  to  draw  forth  your  sentiments  and 
show  to  the  world  that  you  were  Anti-trinitarians.  This  point 
being  now  established  beyond  all  doubt,  the  public  will  acquit 
me  of  the  charge  of  slander,  in  asserting  that  you  do  not  wor- 
ship the  Christian's  God.  I  am  content  to  rely  on  the  few  but 
irrefutable  arguments  already  advanced,  and  to  proceed  to  an- 
other subject.  To  silence  a  loquacious  opponent,  is  as  impossi- 
ble as  to  stop  the  wind.  You  may  turn  it  aside,  you  may  screen 
yourself  from  its  attacks,  but  it  will  still  blow  on. 

The  pen  of  my  ingpiiious  opponent  reminds  me  of  the  scold' 
ing  woman's  tongue,  that  did  not  cease  to  brandish  itself  even 
after  she  was  dead.  Some  animals  will  continue  to  move  their 
tails  long  after  you  have  bruised  their  head. 

On  a  former  occasion  I  have  shown,  that  in  the  rejection  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  you  refused  to  wear  even  the 
badges  of  Christianity ; — in  the  substituticm  of  internal  light 
for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  it  was  fully  proved  you  rejected  the 
only  rule  of  Christianity  ; — and  now  it  has  been  proved,  in  your 
denial  of  the  Trinity,  that  you  reject  the  God  of  Christianity. 
You  pretend  to  hold  the  divinity  of  Christ,'*^  because  you  hold 
that  the  Deity  dwelt  in  him^  in  a  supereminent  manner.  If  this 
were  all  his  divinity,  you  might  ascribe  the  same  honours  to 
Moses,  or  the  Apostle  PauU  or  George  Fox,  or  any  other  saint ; 
for  every  Christian  is  **  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  if 
this  indwelling  of  the  Deity  makes  a  man  divine,  then  all  Chris- 
tians are  Gods,  and  to  he  worshipped  ! 

If  you  will  now  proceed  to  give  us  your  views  of  the  atone- 
ment, we  shall  see  your  rejection  of  another  fundamental  ar- 
ticle of  the  Gospel. 

As  «  Amicus"  seems  'perfectly  satisfied  with  what  he  has  done, 
and  I  hereby  declare  myself  perfectly  satisfied,  why  go  farther? 
If  you  have  really  slain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  (as  yon 
fondly  imagine)  why  continue  to  maul  it  after  it  is  dead  i  Sparc 
your  strength,  you  have  other  living  enemies  enough,  and  next 
attack  the  doctrine  of  atonement.    The  doctrine  of  the  or- 


400 


thodox  is,  that  without  an  injinite  satisfaction  for  sin,  God  could 
never  Iiave  pardoned  mankind  ;  that  this  satisfaction  was  made 
hy  Jesus  Christ  our  Mediatorial  substitute;  so  that  now  the 
merits  of  this  satisfaction  may  be  imputed  to  all  who  will  re- 
pent and  believe  the  Gospel.  Do  you  believe  this  doctrine  : — 
or  what  do  you  believe  upon  the  subject  ? 

In  the  hope  you  will  speak  as  unequivocally  on  this  as  on  tlie 
former  topics,  I  will  now  leave  the  subject  of  the  Trinity,  after 
answering  one  of  your  favourite  objections,  and  making  two  or 
three  general  remarks. 

It  has  been  a  favourite  and  often  repeated  objection  of  yours, 
that  "  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  are  convertible  terms — mean 
*owe  and  the  same  thing,'  and  do  not  imply  any  distinction  qv 
plurality,''^ 

Answer  1.  This  is  to  suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  writing 
the  Scriptures,  did  not  understand  language,  or  he  would  not 
have  used  words  without  meaning.  If  **  Father"  may  mean 
«  Son,"  and  "  Son  may  mean  "  Spirit,"  then  »*  good"  may  mean 
"evil,"  and  heaven"  may  mean  "  hell."  Upon  this  princi- 
ple the  Bible  has  no  certain  signification ;  for  the  above  terms 
are  as  distinct  in  their  meaning  as  any  words  in  the  language. 

2.  If  these  terms  mean  "one  and  the  same  thing,  and  are 
used  synonymously,"  then  we  may  substitute  one  Jor  another 
without  impairing  the  sense.  Let  us  try  :  2  John  3  :  "  Grace 
be  with  you,  merc>  and  peace,  from  God  the  Father,  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  in  truth  and  love." 
According  to  your  views,  the  Apostle  might  have  sought  grace 
"  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  the  Father  in  truth 
and  love!!!"  Again;  Matt,  xxviii.  19;  "Go  baptize  all  na- 
tions in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Now  if  these  terms  are  "  synonymous— mean 
the  same  thing,"  why  was  it  not  said  :  "  Go  baptize  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Father  ?"--or 
"  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  ?" — 
i)r  "  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ! !"  Or  at  the  baptism  of  Christ  himself, 
v/hy  do  we  not  read,  that  when  the  Father  came  up  out  of  the 
vrater,  the  Father  was  seen  descending  like  a  dove,  and  the 
Viiee  of  the  Father  was  heard  from  heaven,  saying,  "  this  is 
my  beloved  Father  in  wliom  I  am  well  pleased  ! !  !"  Who  is 
not  shocked  at  this  blasphemous  interpretation  of  Scripture ! 
Yet  such  is  necessarily  the  interpretation  of  those  who  say  that 
the  terms  "  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost"  mean  the  same  thing, 
and  deny  all  distinction  in  the  Deity. 

In  the  mean  time,  all  Christians  would  be  satisfied  that  there 


401 


is  a  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  if  there  were  no  other  proofs  in 
Scripture  than  the  foUowin.i^: 

1.  Jolin  i.  1,  **  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.  All  things  were 
made  by  Him.  And  the  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory,"  &c. 

Here  it  is  evident  that  the  *'  Word"  means  a  «  person,"  be- 
cause He  is  spoken  of  as  Creator,  and  the  personal  pronouns  ^ 

him"  and  <*  his"  are  used  ; — secondly,  that  this  Word  exist- 
ed before  he  was  *<  made  flesh  ;" — thirdly,  that  tliis  Word  <*  was 
God ;" — fourthly,  that  this  person  was  separate  from  another 
person  called  God,  for  he  was  <«  with  God.  * — This  is  proof 
positive  of  a  plurality  in  the  Godhead,  unless  you  can  disprove 
one  of  these  propositions — that  the  Word  "  was  God,"  or  that 
He  was  **  with  God." 

2.  Again  ;  John  viii.  17, 18,  It  is  written  in  your  law,  that 
the  testimony  of  two  men  (or  of  two  persons)  is  true.  I  am  one 
that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  me  bear- 
eth  witness  of  me."  Now,  either  there  is  no  force  in  our  Lord's 
argument,  or  he  and  his  Father  are  in  some  sense  two.  We 
must  doubt  his  logic,  or  admit  his  distinct  personality,  and  of 
course  admit  a  plurality  in  the  Godhead. 

3.  Lastly :  John  xiv.  23,  "  If  a  man  love  me  (said  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ)  he  will  keep  my  word,  and  my  Father  will  love 
him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him." 
Now  it  is  morally  impossible  that  Jesus  Christ  as  man^  or  in 
his  human  nature  should  dwell  in  the  hearts  of  all  his  disciples. 
This  would  be  equal  in  absurdity  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  His  indwelling,  therefore,  refers  to  his  divine  nature. 
But  the  Father  also  dwells  in  these  disciples,  and  Christ  spake 
of  himself  as  numerically  and  personally  distinct  from  the  Fa- 
ther, when  he  says :  "  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  This  is  testi- 
mony of  the  most  infallible  kind,  by  him  who  knew  the  Fa- 
ther," that  there  is  2L2)lurality  in  the  Godhead. 

And  here  I  am  willing  to  leave  the  subject.  If  "  Amicus" 
will,  in  his  next,  give  us  your  views  of  the  atonement,  I  will 
say  no  more  at  present  on  the  Trinity.  PAUL. 


51 


402 


SeverUh-day,  XOth  mo,  5,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXVII. 

And  Balak^s  anger  was  kindled  against  Balaam,  and  he  smote 
his  hands  together :  and  Balak  said  unto  Balaam^  I  called  thee 
to  curse  mine  enemies,  and  behold  thou  hast  altogether  blessed 
them.  Therefore  now  jiee  unto  thy  place :  I  thought  to  promote 
thee  to  great  honour,  but,  lo,  the  Lord  hath  kept  thee  back  from 
honour,^'   Numb.  xxiv.  10, 11, 

How  often  are  the  designs  of  the  malevolent  frustrated,  by 
the  very  means  they  use  to  accomplish  them  ! — They  attack 
the  character  of  the  virtuous  man — they  drag  him  into  public 
view,  with  the  intention  to  render  him  odious.  They  distort 
his  sentiments,  and  attribute  his  good  actions  to  a  bad  cause. — 
But  their  plans  prove  abortive  ! — His  virtues  recommend  him 
to  general  approbation,  and  the  very  attempt  to  injure  him, 
proves  a  means  of  introducing  him  to  the  public  favour  !  The 
evil  passions  which  excited  his  enemies  to  curse  him,  are  over- 
ruled ;  and  behold  in  the  end  it  is  found  they  have  alt»gether 
blessed  him !!!" 

But  how  is  it  with  the  instruments  of  malice  and  detraction  ? 
They  cannot  even  keep  their  own  secrets — they  discover  iheir 
designs — they  manifest  their  turpitude,  and  the  anger,"  even 
of  their/orrner  friends,  is  kindled  against  them,*"  whilst  the 
language  of  public  disapprobation  is  distinctly  heard,  saying: 
«  Therefore  now  flee  unto  thy  pface,  for  lo,  the  Lord  hath  kept 
thee  back  from  honour !" 

Truth,  like  pure  gold,  stands  the  test  of  the  severest  scru- 
tiny— the  more  it  is  handled,  the  brighter  it  shines.  Error,  on 
the  contrary,  like  base  metal,  grows  darker  by  exposure ;  and 
if  it  be  intended,  that  it  should  retain  any  value  in  the  mistaken 
opinions  of  men,  its  advocates  must  sliroud  it  in  darkness. — 
Like  the  doctrine  of  my  opponent,  it  must  be  carefully  wrapped 
in  the  mantle  of  mystery  / 

In  "  Paul's"  last  Letter  he  tells  us,  «  his  object  at  the  first, 
was  not  to  go  into  a  full  detail  of  the  arguments  for  the  Trinity, 
but  to  just  far  enough  to  draw  forth  owr  sentiments,  and  shew 
to  the  world  that  we  were  Anti-trinitarians  !!!"  If  this  were  his 
whole  design,  we  grant  that  he  has  succeeded — *'  this  point  is 
established  beyond  a  doubt." — Behold  then,  the  result  of  all 

his  prayers,  his  long  anxiety,  and  earnest  inquiry  after 
duty  !!!"  He  has  written  ten  long  and  laboured  Letters  tons, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity;  and  this,  not  to  defend  his  own  no- 
tions f  but  simply  <*  to  shew  to  the  world,"  what  fifty  of  our 


405 


writers  published  more  than  a  century  ago !!  to  wit,  that  w 
were  not  Trinitarians — that  we  did  not  worship  THREE 
GODS !  How  much  the  world  may  feel  indebted  to  him,  I 
cannot  say — if  i/  was  as  ignorant  as  my  opponent  has  supposed, 
1  think  we  ought  to  be  exceedingi}  obliged  to  him  for  his  la- 
bours. It  is  true,  he  meant  to  make  us  odious — but  I  think 
his  intentions  have  been  overruled,  and  that  he  has  *<  altogether 
blessed  us  !"  But  I  ween  the  advocates  of  a  PLURAL 
GOD,"  will  not  thank  him  much  for  his  services  !  He  has  gone 
«*just  far  enough"  to  prove  them  TRITHEISTS— -to  expose 
them  as  worshippers  of  three  separate  divine  Beings — three  dis- 
tinct Holy  Spirits--THREE  GODS  !  And  then,  instead  of 
fully  defending  them  in  the  hour  of  trial,  he  has  ignobly  left 
the  field,  and  retired  to  the  shades  of  mystery  and  darkness  ;  the 
gloomy  abode  of  bats;  or,  as  the  prophet  expresses  it,  *<  a 
court  for  owl*.'*    Isaiah  xxxiv.  13. 

But  why  not  "  go  into  a  full  detail  of  arguments  for  the  Trin- 
ity r" — Was  not  this  subject,  which  he  tells  us  is  the  "  very 
foundation  of  Christianity" — **  the  first  principle  of  revealed 
religion,"  of  sufficient  importance  to  induce  him  to  defend  it  ? 
Or  do  not  twenty-eight  columns  of  the  Repository,  closely  filled 
with  his  notions  on  it,  suffice  for  its  defence  I  Or,  have  dis- 
cerning friends  admonished  him  to  "  flee  unto  his  place,"  that 
they  may  preserve  the  remnant  of  their  heritage  ?  Have  they 
not  said  unto  our  modern  Balaam  :  *'  We  called  thee  to  curse 
our  enemies,  and  behold  thou  hast  altogether  blessed  them  !!!" 

But  whether  he  has  been  so  admonished  or  not,  that  his  la- 
bours will  have  a  good  eft'ect,  is  pretty  certain.  The  present 
controversy  will  be  one  mean  among  many  others,  to  excite  re- 
flection :  and  in  our  happy  country,  where  religious  liberty 
is  yet  established  by  law,  to  excite  reflection  is  to  do  much  toward 
the  detection  of  error,  and  the  propagation  of  truth.  The  doc- 
trine of  an  Infinite  Being  subsisting  in  three  distinct  and  separate 
parts,  may  be  retained  by  some,  whose  minds  were,  through 
early  education,  prejudiced  in  its  favour  ;  but  there  is  little 
probability  that  rational  and  unprejudiced  inquirers  after  truth, 
can  ever  embrace  it.  By  the  latter  class,  who  are  undoubt- 
edly numerous,  the  absurdity  of  the  scheme  will  be  discovered, 
and  the  monster  rejected. 

The  real  causes  which  prompted  <*  Paul"  to  attack  us  in  his 
unhandsome  way,  now  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  a  time,  when 
the  Society  I  advocate  was  travelling  along  in  its  usual  quiet 
way,  are  every  day  developing  themselves.  It  seems  by  in- 
formation received  from  the  Calvinists  themselves,  that  they 
are  determined  to  establish  an  overwhehning  Calvinistic  influ- 
ence in  this  country — to  use  the  expressions  of  their  favourite 


40* 

Lyman  Beecher,  a  homogeneous  influence,'*  so  exiensive  that 
Episcopalians,  and  Methodists,  and  other  religious  societies 
could  present  no  obstacle  to  tlieir  designs,  whether  ir-religious 
or  political.  For  this  purpose  various  plans  are  in  operation. 
Theological  Seminaries  are  to  be  instituted  on  so  large  a  scale, 
that  five  thousand  additional  Priests  are  to  be  spread  over  the 
United  States  ;  who  (according  to  the  avowal  ot  one  of  their 
clergy,  Dr.  Burton)  having  got  all  the  Colleges  under  their  in- 
fluence, the  Fresidt  nts  and  instructors  miglit  have  the  address 
to  instill  the  Calvinistic  sentiments  without  the  students  being 
sensible  of  it  J**  then,"  says  the  doctor,  **  nine  out  of  ten.  when 
they  leave  the  College,  will  support  the  Calvinistic  doctrine. 
They  will  go  out  into  the  world  and  will  have  their  influence  in 
society.  In  this  way  we  can  get  a  better  support  without  any 
laWi  than  we  have  ever  had  with  I — and  besides  when  all  our 
Colleges  are  under  our  inHuence,  it  will  establish  our  senti- 
ments and  influence,  so  that  we  can  manage  the  civil  government 
as  we  please  IJP^ 

In  ordt  r  to  institute  such  seminaries,  vast  sums  of  money  are 
to  be  raised  ;  and  Beecher  calls  eloquently  upon  the  people  to 
give  it !  Give  your  money  to  save  your  country  from  ruin  ! 
Give  your  money  to  save  millions  of  our  country -men  from 
hell  !  Give  your  money,  that  we  may  be  rescued  from  a  vio- 
lent death  and  a  speedy  one,  by  the  hands  of  ignorance  and 
irreligion  !"  and  finally;  *<  Give,  that  you  may  provide  for  your 
children,  an  inheritance  uncorruptible,  and  undefiled,  and  un- 
fading in  heaven  !!!"  O  the  mighty  power  of  money  when 
placed  without  stint  in  the  hands  of  Calvinistic  clergymen  !!! 
SVhat  a  pity  it  is,  that  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  did  not  disco- 
ver this  admirable  plan  of  providing  for  posterity  an  inheritance 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ///" 

What  this  swarm  of  Priests  are  to  do  when  they  get  fixed  in 
snug  births,  with  each  a  salary  of  one  or  two  thousand  dollars 
a  year,  we  may  partly  understand  from  the  conduct  and  con- 
fession of  my  opponent.  One  of  the  first  measures  to  be  taken 
is  to  attack  S(»me  peaceable  religious  society,  and  to  be  sure  to 
sel«  ct  or.e  which  they  may  suppose  is  either  unable  or  unwilling 
to  make  any  defence.  In  this  attack  the  young  priest  is  not 
to  go  into  a  full  detail  f)f  the  arguments  for  the  support  of  his 
own  doetrines,  but  to  go  just  far  enough  to  draw  forth  the  sen- 
timents of  the  opposite  party  and  if  he  find  them  not  Calvin- 
isms, nor  Tritheists,  he  is  to  raise  the  cry  of  <*  heretics,"  **  in- 
fidels," «*  heathens,"  or  **  spurious  Christians."  Thus  one 
society  after  another  is  to  be  disgraced  and  put  down,  and 
thus  the  *»  homogeneous  inflti«'nce"  ol  Calvinism  is  to  be  esta- 
blished over  the  churches,  and  over  the  people,  until  the  oriho- 


406 


dox  disciples  of  saint  Athanasius,  Augustin,  and  John  Calviu, 
"can  niafia.g<-  ilir  iivii  i^ovt rnmtni  as  they  please!.*"  What 
an  aUinirabJe  expedit  nt  is  ihis,  as  L^^man  Beecher  says,  to 

rend*  r  our  count  i  >  great  and  gotxi  and  happy 

How  strikingly  tht  such  men  as  my  opponent  and  his  accom- 
plices, reseinule  lih  mercenary  son  ut  iSeor  and  tlie  ministers 
of  Balak  !  The  text  says  :  •*  And  the  elders  of  Moab,  and  the 
elders  of  Median  departed  with  tiie  rewards  of  divination  in 
their  hands ;  and  riiey  came  unto  Balaam,  and  ihey  spake  unto 
him  ihe  words  of  Balak  and  they  said  :  Come  now  therefore, 
I  pray  tliee  curse  me  thi.s  pe<iple,  tor  they  are  too  mighty  for 
nie,  peradveniure  1  shall  prevail,  that  we  niay  smite  them,  and 
that  I  may  drive  thern  out  of  the  laud." — **  Let  nothing  I  pray 
thee  hinder  thee  from  coming  unto  me,  for  I  will  promote  thee 
unto  very  great  honour;'' — and  Balaam  rose  up  in  the  morning 
and  saddled  his  ass,  and  went  with  the  Princes  of  Moab.  Numb, 
xxii.  6,  7,  16,  17,  Z±, 

On  this  passage  we  may  remark, — ist,  It  was  the  elders  that 
went  to  Balaam  with  the  rewnrds  of  divination — A  powerful 
motive  ! — 2nd,  •*  And  they  saiu,  come  now  therejore^"^^ — that  is, 
come  for  a  reward,  od,  Curse  me  this  people  for  they  are 
too  mighty  for  me." — We  are  afraid  of  them  unless  we  have  a 
divine  or  a  diviner  ! — 4ith,  But  if  thou  curse  them,  «  peradven- 
ture  I  shall  prevail  that  we  may  smite  them,  and  that  I  may 
drive  them  out  of  the  land."  Calvinism  can  do  nothing  without 
an  educated  clergy — and  the  clergy  can  do  nothing  without  a 
reward — and  without  sucIl  a  reward^  no  homogeneous  infiuence  ! — 
3th,  **  Let  nothing,  1  pray  thee,  hinder  thee  from  coming  unto 
me."— Every  thing  must  bend  to  the  great  concern  of  smiting 
the  people  and  driving  them  out  of  the  land!  6th,  <*  For  1  will 
promote  thee  unto  very  great  honour,'^ — Another  powerful  mo- 
tive. 7th,  **  And  Balaam  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,'*^ — 
Strong  motives  produce  prompt  measures !  8th,  **  And  sad- 
dled his  ass'' — procured  suitable  help!  9rh,  <*And  went  with 
the  Princes  of  Moab." — Great  rewards — much  honour — and  the 
company  of  Princes  will  cause  a  mercenary  Prophet  to  make 
great  exertions !!! 

Here  we  see  the  motives  offered  to  Balaam  were  "  RE- 
WARDS AND  HONOUR,"  the  very  same  that  are  tendered 
to  the  Balaams  of  our  day  ;  and  that,  so  publicly,  that  religious 
Newspapers,  from  one  end  of  the  United  States  to  the  other, 
seem  to  be  used,  in  a  great  degree,  for  this  very  purpose  ! — 
«  The  press,''  says  the  infatuated  Lyman  Beecher,  must  groan 
in  the  communication  of  our  wretchedness,  [for  want  of  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  learned  theohigical  priests]  and  from  every 
pulpit  in  the  land,  the  trumpet  must  sound  long  and  loud  5 — 


486 


Newspapers,  Tracts  and  Magazines  must  disclose  to  our  coun- 
trymen their  danger'  [for  want  of  an  educated  clergy.]  What 
is  this  trumpet  to  be  sounded  for  ?  Not  only  to  lei  us  know 
our  danger,  but  to  ♦*  call  upon  the  Pastors  and  their  churches 
for  their  co-operation''  to  supply  the  ministers  of  Calvinism 
with  money  !  To  let  the  people  know,  that  «  if  each  church 
"would  engage  to  pay  at  the  rate  of  One  dollar  a  member,  the 
result  would  be,  an  annual  income  that  would  support  thousands 
of  pious  students."  If  this  plan  should  be  adopted,  with  the 
others  recommended  by  Beecher,  what  a  formidable  troop  of 
young  Balaams  should  we  soon  see  repairing  "  to  the  high 
places  of  Baal,  that  they  might  see  the  utmost  part  of  the  peo- 
ple,'' and  anathematize  all  who  dared  to  refuse  subscription  to 
the  Calvinistic  Creed  !!!  Numb.  xxii.  41. 

My  opponent,  in  his  xxxvth  Letter,  has  taken  the  ground, 
that  Trinitarian  doctrines  have  been  the  only  means  of  reform- 
ing the  vicious,  and  reclaiming  the  profligate !  If  this  were 
true,  it  might  be  some  consolation  to  those,  w  ho  turning  with 
disgust  from  absurd  doctrines,  find  themselves  nevertheless 
obliged  to  receive  them,  or  suffer  clerical  anathema.  But  I  will 
suppose,  what  I  presume  **  Paul"  will  not  deny,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  are  calculated  to  reform  the 
vicious  and  reclaim  the  profligate.  Now  before  he  drew  his 
sweeping  and  arrogant  conclusion,  he  ought  first  to  have  prov- 
ed that  our  Lord  and  his  ministers  were  Trinitarians !  This  he 
has  utt^^rly  failed  to  do;  and  though  he  may  avail  himself  of  all 
the  strength  of  the  Cabalists^  and  all  the  force  of  particles  and 
pronouns,  he  will  ever  fail  to  do !  The  Christian's  God"  is  a 
God  of  unity — neither  compounded  of  parts,  nor  divided  into 
persons,  "  God  is  a  Spirit" — one  pure,  holy  Being — not  three 
distinct  and  separate  holy  Spirits !  "  He  dwelleth  not  in  tem- 
ples made  with  hands,  neither  is  worshipped  with  mens*  hands, 
as  though  he  needed  any  thing;"  but  they  that  worship 
him — [not  them]  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  for 
such  he  seeketh  to  worship  him;''  and  amongst  such  we  desire 
to  be  found.  John  iv.  2k  Acts  xvii.  24,  25. 

But  as  my  opponent  relies  on  the  merits  of  the  Trinitarians, 
for  the  support  of  his  scheme,  my  readers  will  excuse  me  if  I 
meet  him  on  this  ground,  and  spend  a  few  minutes  in  exposing 
its  weakness.  In  the  first  place:  they  have,  from  their  very 
origin,  been  the  most  cruel  and  unrelenting  persecutors  of  their 
fellow  believers  in  Christ,  that  have  ever  appeared  under  the 
name  of  Christians  /  They  have  been  almost  the  only  persec2itors 
of  Christianity,  that  have  unsheathed  the  sword,  anil  lighted  the 
fire  of  persecution !  From  the  time  of  the  murderous  saint 
MhanasiuSf  down  to  the  bloody  days  of  Governor  Endicott  of 


497 


New  England,  they  have  been  almost  constantly  engaged  hi 
worrying  the  lambs  of  the  Christian  flock  !  To  therp  \ve  owe 
the  terrors  of  the  Inquisition — the  use  of  Jire  and  faggots  for 
reclaiming  heretics — the  invention  of  the  rack  and  the  whtel, 
and  various  other  engines  of  torture^  which  have  disgraced  hu- 
man nature,  and  stained  the  profession  of  faith  in  a  meek,  long- 
suffering,  and  merciful  Redeemer !  ! !  In  the  second  place  : 
Tliey  liave  always  been  the  most  mercenary  professors  of  reli- 
gion, that  the  world  has  produced  !  Ever  remarkable  for  the 
love  of  «<  the  fleece,"  they  have,  by  Simony,  by  tythesy  by  first 
fruits,  by  church  rates,  and  innumerable  Ecclesiastical  demands, 
oppressed  and  impoverished  the  people ;  and  to  this  hour,  iu 
every  land,  where  they  have  the  power,  their  exactions  are  con- 
tinued. Where  they  have  not  the  power,  they  endeavour  to 
supply  the  defect  by  influence.  And  lastly  :  They  have  been, 
and  continue  to  be,  the  most  bigoted  and  illiberal  professors  of 
the  Gospel  that  can  be  named  !  Not  c<»ntent  with  the  enjoyment 
of  their  own  opinions  ;  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press  the)  are  con* 
stantly  interfering  in  the  concerns  of  others.  Because  their  neigh- 
bours cannot  embrace  the  most  irrational  doctrines — adopt 
opinions  derogatory  to  the  benevolent  character  of  the  Deity, 
and  subversives  of  our  best  interests ;  in  fine,  because  they 
cannot  ascribe  infallibility  to  saint  Athanasius  and  his  followers, 
the  Trinitarians  load  them  with  opprobrious  epithets  and  the 
bitterest  reflections  !  If  therefore  the  criterion  of  our  divine 
Master  be  of  any  value  :  <*  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits,^^ 
they  have  as  little  cause  of  boasting,  as  any  people  on  eartli ! 

Whilst  I  write  these  undeniable  truths,  <«  facts  crowd  upon 
facts,"  which/o/ios  upon  folios  would  be  inadequate  to  detail ! 
Facts,  which  show  in  the  most  vivid  colours,  the  dreadful  scenes 
exhibited  by  the  Trinitarians! — But  I  have  no  desire  to  give 
pain  to  my  readers,  or  to  dwell  on  scenes  of  a  shocking  charac- 
ter !  I  have  made  the  foregoing  statements,  merely  to  rebut 
the  arrogant  pretensions  of  my  antagonist.  If  <*  Paul,"  how- 
ever, should  deny  the  truth  of  any  one  of  them,  I  am  prepar- 
ed to  prove  them  by  undeniable  evidence  1 

Happily  for  our  country,  the  power  to  produce  a  revival  of 
such  scenes  is  at  present  taken  away.  The  hand  of  a  benign 
Providence  has  opened  to  the  professors  of  the  Gospel,  an  asy- 
lum in  our  land,  where  every  man  may  sit  under  his  own 
vine  and  under  his  own  fig-tree,  and  none  can  make  him  afraid." 
Mic.  iv.  4  :  where  every  religious  society  may  repose  in  peace, 
and  cultivate  the  virtue  which  adorn  and  give  dignity  to  the 
Christian  character!  My  opponent  has  endeavoured  to  disturb 
this  repose — he  has  lighted  the  torch  of  discord — he  has 
thrown  a  fire-brand  into  the  temple  of  Peace ! ! !  In  defencT- 


408 


ing  ourselves  some  unpleasant  truths  have  necessarily  been 
elicited,  but  which,  if  properly  improved,  may  tend  to  advance 
us  in  the  path  of  pure  religion,  and  to  remove  many  stains 
which  the  misconduct  of  professors  have  cast  on  the  name  of 
our  holy  Redeemer!  Man  turns  good  into  evil — It  is  a  rharac- 
teristic  of  divine  Providence,  to  over-rule  evil,  and  turn  i«  mto 
a  blessing !  I  sincerely  hope  the  present  case  may  furnish  an  in- 
stance of  this  kind,  <*  We  know,"  said  the  Aposie,  *♦  that  all 
things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  lovt  God,^^  R  >m.  viii. 
28.  And  such  Amicus  believes  there  are  amongst  all  socie- 
ties of  Christians.  We  may  differ  on  doctrinal  points,  bui  the 
love  of  God  is  tlie  ^reaf  essential  of  Christianity,  •»  He  tiiat  loveth 
ine  keepeth  my  commandments." 

I  will  now  attempt  a  reply  to  <*  Paul's"  three  arguments  in 
his  last  Letter,  which  he  thinks  are  alone  si.ffieient  tc-  satisfy 
all  Christians  [I  suppose  he  means  Tntheists]  that  there  is  a 
plurality  in  the  Godhead  /" 

Now  I  think  the  first  text  he  quotes  is  sufficient,  in  connec- 
tion with  other  passages  of  Scripture,  to  convince  any  but  eon- 
firmed  Tritheists,  that  the  docirine  is  untrue.  For  1st,  "  The 
WORD  was  GOD,''  is  the  express  language  of  the  text ! — Of 
course,  notone-thtrd  part  of  God.  2d,  *<AII  things  w  ere  made  by 
Him.'*  Mow  Moses  tells  us  :  *«  in  the  beginning  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth.'*  If  therefore  the  creation  was  not 
the  work  of  one-third  part  of  the  Deity — if**  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,"  and  if  *»  all  things  were  made  by 
Christ," — then  **  God"  and  **  Christ''  must  mean  the  same  thing 
when  applied  to  the  Deity  ! — 3d,  **  x\nd  the  Word  was  made 
flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  &c."  The  Word  was  not  transub- 
stantiated into  flesh  !  The  Apostle  clearly  explains  this  pas- 
sage :  <*  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  4th,  The 
use  of  personal  pronouns  when  applied  to  the  Deity,  do  not 
prove  personality.  No  one  can  rationally  apply  the  expressions 
of  Scripture  to  God,  in  a  carnal  sense.  Upon  **  Paul's"  theory 
the  Deity  is  distinguished  by  sex,  and  is  of  the  masculine 
gender,  because  the  personal  pronouns  **  him"  and  *<  his"  are 
not  only  personal  when  applied  to  men,  but  indicate  the  male 
sex  I — My  opponent's  theory  is  both  shocking  and  absurd  !!! 
.5th,  The  expressions  :  And  the  Word  was  with  God,"  taken 
in  connection  with  the  following  members  of  the  sentence,  can 
not  imply  any  distinct  personality  of  the  Word.  Their  evident 
import  is :  and  the  Word  was  one  with  God,"  for  "  the  Word 
was  God." 

*«  Paul's"  second  argument  is  founded  on  the  text,  John  viii. 
18,  "  I  am  one  that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father 
that  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me.*'  The  conclusion  he  draws 


409 


from  this  text :  "  that  God  and  Christ  are  in  some  sense  two," 
may  be  fully  granted  without  adding  the  least  force  to  liis  Tri- 
nitarian scheme  !  The  plain  Scriptures  1  iiave  quoted  to  dis- 
prove a  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  divine  nature,  show  that  they 
are  in  some  sense  txvo/  *«  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the 
world  unto  himself,"  2  Cor.  v.  19.  In  this  text  it  is  shown  that 
God  and  Christ  are  in  a  very  clear  sense  two!  God"  refers 
us  to  the  Deity,  **  Christ"  to  that  body  which  was  born  of  the 
-virgin  Mary,  which  was  afterwards  crucified,  and  which  Ami- 
l  cus  never  was  so  stupid  as  to  suppose  divine. 

The  third  argument,  like  most  of  my  opponent's  scheme,  is 
founded  on  the  use  oj  the  pronouns.  "  If  a  man  love  me  he  will 
keep  my  word,  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come 
unto  him  and  make  our  abode  with  him."  John  xiv.  23.  Now 
our  Lord  himself  shall  answer  this  argument,  and  if  Paul" 
should  not  relish  the  reply,  let  him  try  to  refute  a  position  taken 
by  Christ  himself.  **  He  that  seeth  me  hath  seen  the  Father." 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one." 

The  rest  of  *<  Paul's"  assertions  in  his  last  Letter,  which  may 
be  considered  as  his  expiring  struggle  on  this  subject,  have  all 
been  amply  refuted.  1  will  not  therefore  detain  my  readers 
longer  at  this  time,  but  simply  refer  them  to  my  former  com- 
munications. 

**  If  *'  Paul"  should  think  it  expedient  to  attack  us  on  any 
other  point,  I  shall  hold  myself  in  readiness  to  shew  the  con- 
sistency of  our  doctrines  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  with 
sound  reason.  All  1  can  ask  of  any  enemy  is  to  state  them 
ffiirly  and  in  the  language  of  our  approved  writers.  This  being 
done  I  see  no  reason  to  fear  the  consequences,  let  the  assailant 
I  be  who  he  may.  AMICUS. 


Frldaify  October  11,  18^2, 

LETTER  XXXVII. 

ox  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

»it  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven^ 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth ;  and  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  he  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.^- 
Phil.  ii.  10,11. 

If  the  Christian  public  are  no  more  troubled  with  the  railing 
of  Amicus"  than  is  tlie  writer  of  these  essays,  they  will 
hardly  think  his  last  effusion  needs  an  answer.    Vexed  that  be 

52 


410 

has  been  compelled  to  expose  himself  and  you,  by  acknowledging 
your  doctrines,  he  vents  his  spleen  by  a  personal  attack  on  his 
supposed  antagonist,  and  on  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  gene- 
rally. On  this  subject  "  Amicus"  knows  my  purpose.  He 
may  call  me  **  malevolent,"  "  mercenary,"  *•  hireling  ;"— ac- 
cuse me  of  "  malice,"  •<  detraction,"  bitterni  ss"  and  *'  false- 
hood ^" — stigmatize  me  as  a  "  modern  Balaam*"  a  **  cruel  un- 
relenting persecutor,"  an  <«  enemy,"  and  use  whatever  other 
epithets  his  boasted  «  charity^^  may  dictate  ;  1  shall  speak  of 
him  (as  a  man,)  as  1  have  always  done,  witli  affection  and  esteem, 
I  shall  not  assume  the  attribute  of  omniscience,  as  he  has  often 
done,  and  pretend  to  searcli  the  hearts  and  arraign  the  motives 
of  my  fellow  creatures.  In  this  controversy,  1  have  to  do  only 
with  his  doctrines.  These  1  have  pronounced,  and  with  the 
Bible  in  my  hands,  ever  must  pronounce,  dangerous  and  fatal 
to  the  soul  that  receives  them. 

He  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  speak  of  the  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel as  a  set  of  mercenary,  selfish  and  ambitious  tyrants ;  the 

elders"  of  our  churches  as  no  better  than  the  friends  of  Balak 
king  of  Moab, — the  whole  body  of  the  **  Calvinists  '  as  cruel, 
unrelenting  persecutors," — **  almost  the  only  professors  of 
Christianity  that  have  unsheathed  the  sword  and  kindled  the 
fire  of  persecution" — *<  to  whom  we  owe  the  Inquisition,"  the 

fire  and  faggot,''  the  «  rack,"  the  *'  wheel,"  and  various 
other  engines  of  torture,"  and  thus  give  another  evidence  of 
his  comprehensive  *'  charity  ;" — a  striking  evidence  of  his  can^ 
doTf  in  thus  charging  the  actions  of  grievous  wolves,^''  upon 
the  poor  innocent  sheep. 

In  answer,  if  time  permitted,  and  the  present  state  of  the 
argument  called  for  it,  I  should  like  to  contrast  the  conduct  of 
Trinitarians  generally  with  the  conduct  of  their  opponents. 

As  the  LOVE  or  money  seems  to  be,  in  your  eyes,  the  unpar- 
donable sin,  I  should  like  to  contrast  the  avariciousness  of  Tri- 
nitarian churches  in  raking,  and  scraping,  and  saving  thousands 
of  dollars,  to  send  ten  thousand  miles  off  to  the  po(»r  perishing 
heathen, — with  the  liberality  of  those  who  never  give  a  cent  to 
evangelize  the  Gentiles,  and  whose  charity,  for  the  most  part, 
ends  where  it  begins,  in  their  own  society  ! 

I  should  like  to  contrast  the  pennriousness  of  those  churches, 
who  are  willing  to  give  hundreds  of  dollars  to  support  a  preach- 
er, who  can  explain  the  Scriptures  and  edify  the  congregation,— 
with  the  generosity  of  those  who  had  rather  starve  on  the  frothy 
declamations  of  an  ignorant  female,  than  contribute  a  trifle  for 
the  support  of  one  who  might  "  give  himself  continually  to 
prayer  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word," — whose  <«  profiting 
should  appear  unto  all" — who  would  not    serve  God  with  that 


411 


which  cost  him  naught' ' — who  would  look  to  the  Bible  for  in« 
struction,  rather  than  to  a  miraculous  internal  light. 

I  should  like  to  contrast  the  worldly  viindedness  of  those  pious 
youth,  who,  when  they  might  make  a  fortune  in  any  other  pro- 
fession, enter  a  ministry,  where,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  they 
cannot  expect  such  a  support  as  to  keep  them  out  of  debt • 
witli  the  extreme  disinterestedness  of  those  preachers,  who  are 
at  no  expense  in  previous  education,  none  in  weekly  study  and 
preparation,  and  who  receive  no  other  compensation  for  that 
which  •♦costs  them  naught,"  than  the  privilege  of  putting  their 
hand  in  the  purse,  and  taking  what  they  choose  I  /  / 

I  should  like  to  contrast  the  luxury,  the  wealth,  and  the  ease 
of  those  Trinitarian  Missionaries,  who  have  left  all  and  gone  to 
carry  the  Gospel  to  our  western  forests,  to  Asia  and  to  the  islands 
of  the  sea,— with  the  self-denial,  the  poverty,  and  the  hardships 
of  those  Reformers,"  **  Watchmen"  and  *<  Friends,"  who 
stay  at  home  to  condemn  them ! ! !  In  short,  1  should  like  to 
compare  the  whole  system  of  those  who  value  money  only  as  the 
means  of  supporting  and  extending  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ, 
with  that  whole  system  of  which  money-making  SLud  money -keep- 
ing appear  to  be  the  beginning  and  end ! !!  But  all  this  would 
be  at  present  out  of  place.  We  are  now  appealing  to  the  Bible 
for  the  truth  of  certain  doctrines,  and  by  the  Bible,  and  not  by 
the  conduct  of  professors,  these  doctrines  must  stand  or  fall. 

After  nine  months  importunate  teasing  of  my  opponent,  and 
when  nothing  else  seemed  likely  to  prevail,  a  gauntlet  of  what 
he  calls  **  indecent"  defiance,  he  has  been  compe  lled  to  throw 
olF  the  mask  and  make  a  disclosure,"  which  [  venture  to  say 
notwithstanding  his     fifty  writers")  was  never  made  before  S 

have  before  me  no  less  than  ekven  <lifferent  •*  statements  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  people  called  Quakers."  drawn  up  by  your- 
selves, some  ancient,  some  modern  ;  not  one  of  which  speak 
explicitly,  and  the  majority  of  them  not  at  ail  on  the  vital  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity  !  But  lest  •<  Amicus"  should  accuse  me  of 
ignorance,  I  appeal  to  the  public,  if  they  ever  saw  so  explicit 
an  avowal  of  your  doctrine  on  this  point  ?  Suspicions  of  your 
heresy,  it  is  true,  have  been  almost  universal,  beeause  of  your 
silence  on  a  point  of  fundamental  consequence,  and  the  occa- 
sional inuendoso^  your  preachers  and  your  books.  But  the  pub- 
lic will  judge  whether  they  are  or  not  indebted  to  this  controversy 
for  the  first  explicit  avowal  of  your  Unitarianism  that  was  ever 
made ! 

You  ask,  why  I  do  not  **  go  into  a  full  detail  of  the  arguments 
for  the  Trinity  ?"  I  answer :  becaus"  I  have  alrea<l>  hrow^lit 
more  arguments  than  can  he  ever  answ**red  ;  because  it  wi)uld 
prolong  this  controversy  beyond  all  reasonable  bounds,  to  go 


412 


into  a  full  detail because  the  discussion  of  other  subjects 
will  continually  bring  the  Trinity  into  view ; — but  especially 
because  it  will  defend  itself.  The  Christian  community,  1  mean 
such  as  feel  their  need  of  salvation,  will  never  tolerate  a  doc- 
trine which  dethrones  their  Saviour,  and  blasts  their  everlasting 
hopes  !  1  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  go  further ;  and  if  you 
will  not  give  your  views  of  the  atonement,  I  am  as  willing  to 
stop  here  as  six  weeks  hence.  I  am,  however,  perfectly  satis- 
fied. My  main  object  has  been  gained.  Your  mask  has  been 
torn  off.  You  have  disrobed  yourselves  of  the  very  form  of 
Christianity.  And  henceforth  you  will  need  no  accuser.  So 
long  as  the  essays  of  Amicus"  are  acknowledged,  no  worse 
charges  can  be  brought  against  you  than  what  they  acknow- 
ledge to  be  just. 

A  siege  of  nine  months  more,  would  perhaps  draw  forth  your 
views  of  the  atonement  ;  but  as  1  have  not  nine  months  more 
to  spare,  I  have  little  hope  that  you  will  make  a  candid  state- 
ment of  your  views. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  will  state  a  few  of  the  momentous  con- 
sequences of  denying  a  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Deity  ;  con- 
sequences which,  as  you  admit  them,  will  of  course  give  you 
Tio  concern  ;  but  which  the  Christian  public  will  not  tolerate. 
You  have  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ,  except  as  he  is  the 
Father;"  so  far  as  he  is  distinct  from  the  Father,  you  never 
were  so  stupid  as  to  consider  him  divine." 

As  you  will  not  state  your  doctrines  to  the  public,  I  will  state 
them  for  you.  First,  then,  you  make  the  Son  whom  God  gave 
for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  a  mere  man,  John  iii.  16,  «*  God 
so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  <S'o7i,"  &:c. 
Gal.  iv.  4,  «  God  sent  forth  his  Son."  Now  this  **  Son,"  who  is  the 
brightness  of  the  Father^s  glory^  and  the  express  image  of  his  per- 
son, who  is  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high,  of 
whom  the  Father  saith,  when  he  brought  him  into  the  world, 

Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him  ;"  and  to  whom,  more- 
over, God  saith  :  **  Thy  throne,  0  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever." 
Heb.  i.  1,  10,  This  Son"  you  say,  was  not  divine.  For  no 
one  will  be  so  «  stupid  as  to  believe"  that  this  Son  whom  the 
Father  gave,  whom  he  told  all  the  angels  to  worship,  and  to 
whom  he  said  :  <«  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever,"  was  not  dis- 
tinct from  the  Father.  But  as  distinct  from  the  Father,  you  say 
he  was  not  God,  he  was  a  mere  man!  J  You  therefore  deny  the 
divinity  of  the     Son  of  God." 

2.  You  make  him  as  Mediator,  a  mere  man.  For  none  but 
a  **  stupid"  person  can  doubt  that  a  Mediator,  so  far  as  he  is  a 
mediator,  must  be  distinct  from  the  parties  between  whom  he 
mediates.    Of  course  as  Mediator  he  must  be  disti^ict  from  God 


41S 


the  Father ;  but  as  a  distinct  person,  you  say  he  was  no  more 
than  man.  Of  course,  in  the  only  capacity  in  which  he  can  me- 
diate, you  say,  he  is  no  more  than  man  ! ! !  This,  however,  will 
give  tjou  little  concern.  For  I  have  never  discovered  from  your 
books,  sermons  or  prayers,  that  you  felt  any  need  of  a  Mediator  at 
all ! 

3.  You  make  him  as  Redeemer  a  mere  man.  When  I  speak 
^•dfPChrist  as  a  Redeemer,  I  speak  of  him  as  dying  to  make  atone- 
ment for  our  sins — as  '*  giving  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.'*  Now 
the  most  "  stupid''  person  must  perceive  that  a  Redeemer,  so 
far  as  he  is  a  Redeemer,  must  be  distinct  from  those  whom  he 
redeems,  and  from  Him  to  whom  he  pays  the  ransom  price. 
But  as  distinct  from  the  Father,  to  whom  he  paid  this  price, 
you  say  he  cannot  be  divine.  Of  course  only  as  a  man,  a  finite 
creature,  can  he  act  a^  our  Redeemer  ! !  Thus  the  idea  which 
the  orthodox  entertain  that  "  Gou  purchased  the  church  with 
HIS  OWN  BLOOD,"  Acts  XX.  28 — that «  God  laid  his  life  for 
us,"  1  John  iii.  16 — that  **  the  Lord  of  Glory  was  crucified,^^ 
that  the  «*  Lamb"  whom  all  heaven  worships,  was  "  slain^^  for 
us,  is  all  a  mistake  ! !  Christians,  if  Christ  be  not  God  as  distinct 
from  the  Father,  you  have  no  Redempti(m  but  what  a  creature 
could  procure ;  no  atonement  but  what  «  mortal  flesh"  could 
make  !  Christians  will  be  shocked  at  this ;  but  I  have  never 
discovered  from  your  books,  sermons  or  prayers  that  you  feel  any 
need  of  a  Redeemer  ! 

4.  In  his  office  of  Intercessor  you  make  him  a  mere  man. 
We  have  an  Mvocate  with  the  Father,  even  Jesus  Christ  the 

righteous,''  who  '<  ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us.'' 
1  John  ii.  1.    Heb.  vii.  25. 

Now  an  intercessor  must  be  distinct  from  them  for  whom,  and 
from  Him  with  whom  he  intercedes.  Jesus  Christ,  therefore, 
as  intercessor,  must  be  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father  with 
whom  he  pleads.  But  as  distinct  from  God  the  Father  your 
doctrine  makes  him  no  more  than  man.  Of  course,  if  your  doc- 
trine be  true,  we  have  no  intercessor,  no  «  Advocate  with  the 
Father" — but  a  finite  being  like  ourselves  ! ! !  If  so,  wherein 
are  we  better  off  than  the  Roman  Catholics  who  trust  in  the  in- 
tercession of  the  "  blessed  Virgin"  and  of  other  saints  ? — My 
brethren,  to  those  who  feel  their  need  of  an  intercessor  with  a 
holy  God,  yours  is  an  awful  doctrine.  But  I  have  never  disco- 
vered from  any  of  your  religious  statements  that  you  feel  your  need 
of  any  intercessor.    Please  tell  us,  if  you  do? 

5.  You  deny  his  divinity  as  our  Judge.  For  "the  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  has  committed  all  judgment  to  the  <S'on;" 
John  V.  22.  Now  unless  the  «  Son"  be  a  distinct  person  from 
the  "Father,"  then  the  Father  does  really  judge  mankind. 


Which  is  false,  for  it  is  contradicted  by  the  text.  The  Son, 
therefore,  is  a  distinct  person  from  the  Father.  But,  as  such, 
you  say  he  is  not  divine.  Therefore  the  universe  is  to  be  judg- 
ed by  a  Jinite  and  of  course  imperfect  man ! 

6.  You  make  him  as  an  object  or  our  worship  a  tnere  man. 
Stephen  in  his  dying  moments  looked  up  and  said  :  Behold  I 
see  the  heavens  opened  and  the  Son  of  Man  standing  on  the 
right  hand  of  God.  And  they  stoned  Stephen,"  calling  up<m  G(|^,  I 
and  saying  :  "  Lord  Jesus  receive  my  spirit,^'  Acts  vii.  56,60. 
This  person  whom  Steplien  worshipped^  and  whom  he  regarded 
as  distinct  from  God  the  Father,  you  say  it  is  ♦»  stupid  to  believe 
divine.^' 

In  early  times.  Christians  were  described  as  those  who  «call 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  or  make  him  the  object  of  their 
worship.  "  Grace,  mercy  and  peace,"  are  sought  not  only  from 
*^God  the  Fattier,"  but  from  "the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son 
of  the  Father."  And  yet  you  say,  that  as  distinct  from  the 
Father,  he  is  simply  a  man! 

Moreover  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.  Heb.  i.  5;  and  tlie 
whole  HE1.VENI.Y  HOST  Consisting  of  **  ten  thousand  times  ten 
thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands,"  are  represented  as 
<«  falling  down  before  the  Lamb."  "  And  they  sung  a  new  song, 
saying :  Thou  art  worthy,  for  thou  wast  slabu  and  hast  redeem- 
ed us  to  God  by  thy  bjlood."  "  And  every  creature  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  which  is  in  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as 
are  in  the  sea,  heard  1  saying  :  Blessing,  and  honour  and  glory 
and  power  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  tlie  throne,  and  unto  the 
Lamb  for  ever  and  ever,"  Rev.  v.  6, 12.  and  vii.  9,  17.  If  here 
be  not  an  act  of  worship  addressed  to  the  Lamb  as  distinct  from 
God  the  Father,  then  there  is  no  meaning  in  words.  The  whole 
Christian  world  worship  Christ  as  distinct  from  God  the  Father, 
and  in  Jthis  they  follow  Scripture  and  glorify  the  Father.  <*  At  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tongue  confess 
that  he  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father,^"*  Phil.  ii.  10, 
11.  But  according  to  your  doctrine  we  worship  a  maut  and 
give  God's  glory  to  another.  But  we  prefer  the  teacliing  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  that  of  either  Barclay  or  "Amicus." 

These  are  a  few  of  the  arguments  which  might  be  brought 
to  show  that  tliough  you  admii  the  "divinity  of  Christ,"  in  ge- 
neral, you  deny  it  in  every  particular.  You  admit  that  "  as  the 
Father"  he  is  divine  ;  but  as  Mediator  and  Intercessor  with 
the  Father,  in  short  in  all  the  offices  in  which  he  acts  as  Saviour, 
he  is  a  mere  man  !  If  opportunitv  offer,  I  will  Ijereaft^^r  show 
that  by  rejecting  the  Trinity,  you  annul  not  only  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  but  also  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(And  now  fellow  Christians,  yoii  see  the  unspeakable  dan- 


M5 

gerous  tendency  of  Quakerism.  It  would  dethrone  your  Sav  - 
our  /  It  would  reduce  the  mediation,  redemption,  atonement, 
intercession,  government  and  salvation  on  which  you  trust,  to 
the  poor  work  of  a  mere  man  !  I !  And  will  you  longer  acknow- 
ledge such  doctrines  as  Christian  doctrines  ?  Are  these  who 
"  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them,"  to  be  owned  as  Chnstian 
brethren  ?  1  trust  not.  Pity  them,  love  them,  pray  for  them, 
but  never  acknowledge  them  as  members  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  until  they  abjure  their  errors,  and  "honour  the 
Son  as  they  honour  the  Father."  PAUL. 

Sixth-day y  10th  mo.  18,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXVllL 

Put  forth  thine  hand  now  and  touch  his  bone  and  his  skin  and  he 
will  curse  thee  to  thy  face.*'  Job  ii.  5. 

In  my  last  essay  I  stated  a  number  of  facts,  deeply  interest- 
ing to  the  Christian  public :  facts,  which  every  friend  to  the 
extension  of  the  Gospel,  ought  ever  to  keep  in  view,  as  they 
have  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  future  prosperity  of  the 
church.  Christianity  never  can  be  essentially  injured  by  her 
avowed  enemies — her  deepest  wounds  have  always  been  inflict- 
ed in  the  house  of  her  professed  friends  !  I  do  not  lightly  make 
the  assertion,  when  1  say,  that  A  HIRELING  MERCENARY 
CLERGY,  HAVE  DONE  MORE  TO  BRING  DARK- 
NESS AND  DISGRACE  UPON  THE  CHURCH,  THAN 
ALL  OTHER  CAUSES  PUT  TOGETHER!  If  this  be 
true,  and  I  think  it  will  not  be  denied,  and  if  it  should  be,  it 
can  be  easily  proved  ;  I  say  if  this  he  true,  does  it  not  loudly 
call  on  all  societies  of  Christians,  closely  to  examine  the  ground 
of  the  present  system,  whether  the  practice  of  hiring  men  to 
preachy  has  either  precept  or  example,  under  the  Gospel,  to 
sustain  it — whether  the  commands  of  Christ,  the  practice  of 
the  Apostles,  the  warning  voice  of  history,  and  the  testimony 
of  experience,  do  not  all  concur  to  stamp  the  practice  as  anti- 
christian  and  dangerous.  The  covetousness  of  the  clergy  has  been 
proverbial  for  a  thousand  years, — their  ambition  is  without  a 
parallel — and  their  cruelty  has  never  been  surpassed  ! ! ! 

In  corroboration  of  this  view,  and  to  rebut  the  arguments  of 
my  opponent,  I  have,  at  different  times,  laid  before  the  public 
a  number  of  well  authentical  facts — facts,  which  my  opponent 
has  never  dared  to  controvert.  To  do  this  Amicus  apprehend- 
ed was  his  duty,  not  only  as  defendant  in  the  present  contro- 


416 


"versy,  but  as  a  friend  and  advocate  of  that  Gospel  which  came 
by  Jesus  Christ.  These  facts,  it  is  true,  have  militated  against 
the  interests  of  my  opponent :  and,  as  might  have  been  expected^ 
have  produced  an  angry  reply — he  has  descended,  as  he  had 
frequently  done  before,  to  the  use  of  low  and  scurrilous  lan- 
guage, very  unbecoming  the  dignified  character  of  a  Gospel 
minister.  An  interference  with  his  pecuniary  interest  I  have 
no  doubt  was  very  hard  to  bear ;  it  was  like  "  touching  the 
bone  and  the  skin," — but,  as  an  example  to  the  flock,  he  ought 
to  have  borne  it  with  patience^  as  Job  did ;  and  if  he  could  not 
restrain  his  wrath,  it  ought  to  have  been  directed  against 
the  facts  adduced,  and  not  against  Amicus,  nor  the  peaceable 
society  he  advocates  ! 

<*Paul"  feigns  a  belief,  that  Amicus  has  been  vexed  by 
being  compelled  to  expose  himself  and  his  friends  in  the  ac- 
knowledgement of  their  doctrines." — If  our  readers  have  per- 
ceived any  symptoms  of  vexation  in  the  productions  of  Amicus, 
be  has  been  very  unhappy  in  the  choice  of  language  to  express 
his  feelings.  So  far  from  feeling  any  regret  at  the  exposition 
of  our  faith,  it  has  given  him  much  pleasure  to  hold  it  up  more 
publicly  to  view — and  this  pleasure  has  been  heightened  by 
the  consideration,  that  thousands  who  have  been  disgusted 
with  the  idolatrous  scheme  of  saint  Athanasius,  will  perceive 
that  the  Society  of  Friends  have  adopted  sentiments  on  the  na- 
ture of  the  Deity,  which  (while  they  condemn  the  idea  of 
of  THREE  GODS)  are  clearly  and  firmly  supported  by  the 
plainest  Scripture  passages,  and  the  most  conclusive  reasoning. 

But  with  whatever  temper  Amicus  may  have  sustained  his 
cause,  «  Paul's"  last  Letter  breathes  a  spirit  which  cannot  be 
misunderstood !  His  first  paragraph  evinces,  that  he  has  bepn 
wounded  to  the  "  bone ;"  and  from  his  whole  essay  it  is  evident, 
that  he  has  been  touched  on  the  skinJ^  When  his  irritation 
subsides,  and  calmness  succeeds  to  the  hurry  of  passion,  may 
we  not  hope  that  he  will  feel  some  reject  over  the  offspring  of 
his  anger,  and  experience  repentance  for  big  indulgence  of  his 
weakness  !  Anger  blinds  the  judgment;  it  makes  a  writer  for- 
get that  while  he  is  the  sport  of  his  passions,  his  readers  are 
cool,  and  his  best  friends  are  his  most  mortified  spectators. 

My  opponent  seems  offended  that  I  compared  him  with  BA- 
LAAM. But  in  justice  to  Amicus  it  ought  to  be  remembered, 
that  at  the  same  time,  1  marked  the  points  of  resemblance  be- 
tween "  Paul"  and  his  great  prototype.  Now  in  order  to  obli- 
terate any  impression,  which  such  a  comparison  was  calculat- 
ed to  produce,  he  ought  to  have  shewn,  that  the  comparison 
was  unjust.  But  this  he  has  carefully  avoided,  and  thus  he  ba** 
suffered  the  impression  to  remain  ! ! 


Mr 

He  accuses  inc  of  assuming  the  attribute  of  omiiisciencef  be- 
cause, in  conformity  witii  the  rule  laid  down  by  our  Lord  iiim- 
self,  I  judged  of  the  tree  by  its  fruits!  **By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them,  said  our  Lord, — every  good  tree  bringeth 
forth  good  fruit;  bwt  a  corrupt  tree  bringctli  forth  exit  fruit — a 
good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit,^'  Matt.  vii.  16,  17,  18. 
A  man's  faitli  is  much  better  tested  by  this  rule,  than  by  the 
dogmas  and  decisions  of  fallible  men.  *<  Paul"  seems  to  think 
otherwise — but  this  need  not  surprise  us !  It  has  ever  been 
tlie  interest  of  mercenary  professors,  to  obscure  the  plainest 
Gospel  truths;  and  instead  of  testing  the  faith  of  individuals, 
or  societies,  in  this  way,  to  try  it  by  some  CREED  of  human 
invention — no  matter  how  absurd  !  ! ! 

<*  Paul"  tells  me  that  Amicus  is  at  perfect  liberty  to  speak  of 
the  ministers  of  the  GosptL  as  a  set  of  mercenary,  selfish,  am- 
bitious tyrants! !  In  this  however  he  is  much  mistaken — I  do 
not  feel  the  least  liberty  to  say  a  word  against  the  ministers  of 
the  Gospel."  Let  them  be  of  what  society  the>  may,  1  love 
and  venerate  them  with  all  my  heart  ! — Bound  to  the  sacred 
cause  of  Christianity  by  the  double  tie  of  love  and  duty,  they 

scorn  to  make  divinity  a  trade^* — a  step-ladder  to  raise  them 
to  wealth  and  distinction  ! — Like  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  and 
in  cheerful  obedience  to  his  command,  they  **  freely  give"  w  hat 
they  have  <*  freely  received." — They  ask  no  other  compensa- 
tion than  "  a  peaceful  conscience" — no  other  privilege  than  to 
stand  on  the  dignified  ground  of  disinterested  ambassadors  for 
Christ!  See  Acts  xx.  33,  34.  1  Cor.  ix.  18.  But  unhappily 
for  this  sacred  cause,  through  the  influence  of  false  ministers, 
who  have  crept  into  the  fold,  not  through  Christ  the  door — but 
through  the  gate  of  theological  seminaries  ! — not  in  the  power 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  in  the  strength  of  academical  de- 
grees, and  of  that  wisdom  which  is  foolishness  with  God. — I 
say,  tlirough  the  influence  of  such  ministers,  a  dark  apostacy 
has  been  efl*ected  in  the  church.  They  have  obscured  the 
plain  truths  of  the  Gospel !  The  Christian  plan  of  redemption, 
simple  as  the  light  of  day,  has  been  darkened  by  their  heathe  n- 
ish Jargon,  and  **  methaphysical  nonsense  !"  The  knowledge  of 
God  and  eternal  life,  through  the  operation  of  his  own  blessed 
Spirit,  which  was  promised  to  "the  least"  as  well  as  <*  to  the 
greatest,"  Ueb.  viii.  11.  tbey  have  wrapped  up  in  mystery, 
and  enveloped  in  tlie  fogs  of  Pagan  pliilosophy! — and  hence, 
with  all  the  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness,  according  to 
apostolic  predictiim,  through  feigned  words,  they  have  made 
merchandize  of  the  people." — Against  such,  in  w  liatever  socie- 
ty they  may  be  found,  I  feel  at  perfect  liberty  to  speak"  und 
53 


4lS 

to  paint  them  in  their  true  character  as  "  grievous  wolves,  who 
have  entered  in,  not  sparing  the  flock."    Acts  xx.  29. 

In  a  former  address,  *•  Paul"  claimed  for  the  Trinitarians, 
the  sole  merit  of  spreading  the  Gospel !  !  !  This  unwarranted 
assumption  was  met  hy  an  exposition  of  some  very  prominent 
features  in  their  character.  They  w(  re  described  as  being 
remarkable  for  their  unreLenting  crueitij,  and  as  **  almost  the  on- 
ly professors  of  Christianity  who  liad  unsheathed  the  sword 
and  lighted  the  fires  of  persecutwn/'  My  opponent  does  not 
deny  these  facts  ! — They  must  therefore  lie  with  deadly 
weight  against  the  Trinitarian  character  ! — *•  Ye  shall  know 
them  by  their  fruits  !  !"  But  so  far  is  Paul's"  assump- 
tion from  true,  that  I  assert  without  any  fear  of  contradiction, 
they  have  done  more  to  obstruct  the  spreadiiig  of  the  Gospel,  than 
any  people  that  have  ever  lived/ — Yet  Paul  thinks  it  uncandid  to 

charge  the  actions  of  grievous  wolves  upon  the  poor  innocent 
sheep! ! !" — How  a  statement  of  facts  can  mark  a  want  of  can- 
dor, he  has  not  explained  !  From  such  sheep  may  we  all  in 
mercy  be  delivered  ! ! ! 

My  opponent  expresses  an  anxious  desire  to  make  contrasts! 
but  he  had  better  be  sparing  on  that  head,  for  if  Amicus  should 
be  induced  to  take  the  same  course,  instead  of  contrasting  one 
falsehood  with  another,  he  would  contrast  facts  with  facts,  and 
open  a  scene  to  those  unacquainted  with  Ecclesiastical  history, 
that  might  do  more  to  cripple  the  cause  of  Trinitarianism,  than 
the  more  lucid  exposition  of  Athanasian  absurdities.  He  might 
contrast  a  contentious,  lordly,  mercenary  clergy,  with  the  meek, 
humble,  disinterested  ministers  of  Christ.  He  might  contrast 
the  services,  the  travels,  and  sufferings  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
working  his  way  from  country  to  country  on  the  produce  of  his 
own  labour,  with  the  shameless  beggary  of  those  who  would 
take  the  last  mite  from  the  hand  of  suffering  poverty.  He 
might  contrast  the  untitled  and  lowly  Peter  and  John,  with  the 
Reverends  of  our  day,  who  justly  claim  ?i  lineal  descent  from  the 
church  of  Rome  ! ! !  But  these  contrasts  would  be  disgusting, 
and  (miy  serve  to  show,  that  the  reformation  from  popery,  with 
all  its  boasted  advantages,  had  been  little  more  than  nominal, 
and  that  the  professing  churches,  whether  Calvinistical  or  pre- 
latical,  still  need  a  greater  reformation  than  has  ever  been  ef- 
fected ! 

Whether  "  the  love  of  money^^  be  an  "  unpardonable  sin,"  I 
"Will  not  undertake  to  determine — but  we  have  divine  authority, 
and  ample  testimony  from  experience,  to  show  that  <♦  it  is  the 
root  of  all  eviir^  Where  is  the  enlightened  and  disinterested 
Christian,  who  does  not  lament  to  see  this  foul  leprosy,  winding 
itself  into  almost  every  department  of  society — to  see  the  9cal,v 


419 


plague,  shining  most  conspicuously  in  the  very  face  of  the  pro- 
fesst  d  church  of  Christ ! ! ! — rising  into  her  eyes,  blinding  her 
to  the  perception  of  her  state,  so  that  when  she  ought  to  hang 
her  liead  for  shame,  she  has  the  indelicacy  to  boast  of  her 
sores ! !  ! 

By  a  great  variety  of  contrasts,  we  might  show  the  striking 
contrariety  uf  character,  between  the  primitive  churches,  and 
those,  w  Inch  Paul"  tells  us,  **  are  raking,  and  scraping  and 
saving  thousands  oC  dollars  to  send  ten  thousand  miles  off  to  the 
poor  perisliini^  iieaihen."  But  tlie  time  would  fail  us;  we  will 
theref<jre  for  the  present  leave  the  subject,  tor  the  calm  reflec- 
tion of  those  who  prefer  the  enjoyment  of  religious  libertyn  to 
the  state  of  the  oppressed  animal,  that  transported  Balaam  from 
Pethor,  •*  the  land  of  the  children  of  His  people,"  to  **  the  high 
places  of  Baal,"  that  he  migiit     curse  Israel !" 

But  my  opponent  informs  us,  that  these  **  thousands  of  dol- 
lars," thus  raked,  and  sci  aped,  and  saved,"  are  sent  to  the 
poor  perishing  heathen! — This  is  trulv  sometliing  wonderful ! 
Whaf!  the  missionaries  send  DOLLARS  TO  THE  HEA- 
THEN ! — As  Paul."  has  been  a  little  subject  to  the  infirmi- 
ty of  hasty  writers — lapsus  linguce,^-  1  would  thank  him  in  his 
next,  to  tell  us  wheth<'r  lie  did  not  mean,  that  these  thousands 
of  dollars  were  ♦*  raked  and  scraped"  to  send  to  the  poor  pe- 
rishing missionaries.'// — For  1  really  suspect  that  the  poor 
heathen  would  find  it  as  diflScult  to  account  for  the  disburse- 
ment of  these  dollars,  (except  at  Serampore.)  as  the  public 
would  be  surprised  to  know  their  real  destination! — I  have  al- 
ways supposed,  that  a  large  portion  of  them  were  consumed  by 
the  very  men  who  strained  every  nerve  to  collect  thcra.  One 
thing  we  know,  (if  the  missionaries  are  to  be  believed,)  that  the 
poor  heathen  have  already  been  laid  under  contribution  for 
funds  to  aid  in  their  subjugation  to  the  Ecclesiastical  yoke! 
The  South  Sea  islanders  have  already  shipped  their  **  pigs, 
and  their  oil,  and  their  arrow  i-oot"  foi*  the  benefit  of  the  mis- 
sionaries; and  the  natives  of  our  own  country  have  already  as- 
signed large  revenues  for  the  same  purposes.  Marsliman, 
Ward  and  company,  have  sl)own  the  world  hov\  to  make  a  for- 
tune in  Hindostaji.— And  TIME,  who  is  a  great  tell-tale,  will 
one  day  develope  such  facts  to  the  public,  as  will  give  them 
little  comfort  while  thev  hold  the  empty  purse  !  ! ! 

Paul,"  after  much  circumlocution,  and  an  attempt  to  make 
his  readers  believe  that  the  society  of  Friends  have  been  silent 
on  the  subject  of  the  divine  nature,  says;  The  public  will 
judge  whether  they  are  not  indebt«  d  to  this  controversy  for  the 
firvSt  explicit  avowal  of  (what  ht  pleased  to  term)  our  L  nitari- 
anisra,  that  was  ever  made."    Now,  if  my  readers  will  consult 


420 


William  Penn's  ^<  Sandy  Foundation  Shaken,"  and  his  "  Inno- 
cenc>  with  her  open  taci%"  both  published  ONE  iiUNDRKD  • 
AJND  FIFTY-FOUR  YEARS  AGO,  they  will  see  that  ht  has 
made  an  avow  al  of  our  UnitarianisFii  as  explicit  as  any  Amicus 
has  ever  made — that  he  has,  with  his  usual  force  and  clearness, 
demonstrated  the  absurdity  and  idolatry  of  the  Athaiiasian 
scheme^  and  consequently,  <*  Paul"  must  be  either  an  ignorant 
pretender,  or  wilful  perverter  of  the  truth. 

For  a  nine  month's  siege  on  the  doctrine  of  "  atonement," 
«  Paul"  cannot  ♦*  spare  the  time  !  !  But  there  are  other  rea- 
sons tor  his  dislike  of  sieges.  In  the  first  place,  he  is  apt  to  run 
short  of  the  means  to  suslain  them.  In  the  next,  he  has  been 
uniformly  driven  from  his  intrenehments  ;  and  in  tlie  present 
case,  on  his  re-appearance  from  his  mystical  refuge^  it  appears 
he  has  taken  the  precaution  to  provide  himself  an  asylum  un- 
der the  wing  of  the  editor,  only  six  steps  distant  from  his  re- 
doubt ! !  In  this  instance  <•  Paul"  is  fairly  entitled  to  the 
praise  of  a  discreet  antagonist.  The  prudent  man  foreseeth 
the  evil  and  hideth  himself,  but  the  simple  pass  on  and  are  pun- 
ished." Prov.  xxii.  3. 

1  will  now  notice  some  of  the  Remarks  of  my  opponent,  intend- 
ed, not  to  prove  the  truth  of  his  own  absurd  doctrine,  but  to 
blind  the  eyes  of  his  readers  to  its  deformity. 

First,  he  says  :  "  the  Christian  community,  such  as  feel  their 
need  of  salvation,  will  never  tolerate  a  doctrine  which  dethrones 
their  Saviour  and  blasts  their  everlasting  hopes  !" — Now  with 
all  due  respect  to  the  views  of  my  opponent,  I  think  it  can  be 

(Xj*  The  folhimig  J\i*ote  should  have  been  inserted  immediately  after  *'  Amicus'  " 
XXXV JIth  Letter,  page  409. 

•  A  -word  to  Paul  and  Amicus. — There  appears  to  be  a  division  among'  our 
subscribers  in  regard  to  your  controversy.  A  number  of  our  readers  would 
prefer  that  your  essays  should  give  place  to  something  of  a  less  controversial 
nature  ;  while  others,  and  perhaps  an  equally  large  number,  anxious  to  Icai'u 
the  sentiments  of  the  Friends,  are  desirous  for  your  continuance.  For  our- 
selves, we  have  been  generally  pleased  with  the  controversy  from  the  first,  ex- 
cept its  length  and  asperities  ;  and  doubt  not  its  having  done  good.  But  too 
much  of  any  thing,  however  good,  is  good  for  nothing  And  as  you  have  now  oc- 
cupied the  Repository,  and  a  large  portion  of  it  too,  for  nearly  a  year  and  a  half; 
as  "  Paul"  professes  to  have  gained  the  main  point  at  which  he  originally  aim- 
ed, a  statement  of  the  sentiments  of  Friends  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity and 
as  "  .\micus,"  by  his  essay  this  week,  seems  to  be  satisfied  with  the  discus.sion 
of  that  point ;  and  as  the  parties  are  beginning  to  manifest  increasing  warmth 
and  personality  ;  the  editor  would  suggest  the  propriety  of  drawing  to  a  close 
as  speedily  as  possible. 

Therefore,  we  conclude  to  stop  the  controversy,  so  far  as  our  paper  is  con- 
cerned, after  each  shall  have  appeared  in  our  columns  six  times  more.  Six 
more  opportunities  will  be  given  to  each  of  the  combatants  to  propose  and  de- 
fend their  sentiments  after  which  we  must  beg  to  be  excused. — Editor  Chris- 
Han  Repository.    Saturday,  Oct.  5,  1822. 


451 


made  clearly  to  appear,  that  upon  this  hypothesis  those  who  feci 
the  need  of  a  Saviour  must  reject  the  Trinitarian  scheme. 
«  Paul's"  Saviour  is  mortal ! 

In  his  pretended  exposition  of  our  doctrine  «  Paul"  first  tells 
MS,  that  nve  *«  make  the  Son,  whom  God  gave  for  the  redemption 
oftheworld,  a  mere  man.^^  It  happens  however  that /?z"s  ;)er- 
version  is  no  part  of  our  doctrine.  1  have  never  yet  heen  quite 
so  **  stupid"  as  to  helieve,  much  less  to  assert  that  a  mere  man 
could  effect  the  redemption  of  the  world.  Nothing  shoFt  of 
Infinite  power  could  possihly  redeem  the  soul  from  sin,  and 
bring  us  into  a  conformity  to  the  divine  nature  !  But  I  have 
before  asserted,  and  1  think  clearly  illustrated,  what  indeed 
every  man  who  reads  his  Bihie  must  see,  that  the  terms 
<«  Christ''  and  *<  Son  of  God,"  are  sometimes  applied  to  the  hu- 
man nature,  which  was  the  medium  of  that  glorious  manifesta- 
tion of  God  in  the  flesh.  "  God  sent  forth  his  Son  made  of  a 
ntvoman,^^  Gal.  iv.  4.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee, 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee,  thertjort, 
also,  that  holy  thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God,-'  Luke  i.  35.  Sometimes  they  are  applied  to 
the  divine  nature,  which  dwelt"  in  it ;  to  God  manifest  in 
the  flesh," — who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  and  the  ex- 
press image  of  his  person,"  or,  properly  "  the  express  charac- 
ter of  his  substance." — <*  To  the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne  O  God 
is  forever  and  ever,"  Heb.  i.  3,  8. — And  sometimes  both  senses 
arc  included  in  the  same  terms  ;  **  God  has  in  these  last  days 
spoken  to  us  by  his  Son^  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all 
things,  by  whom  also,  he  made  the  worlds,"  verse  2.  By  blend- 
ing together  things  that  differ,  and  ideas  which  should  be  kept 
distinct,  my  opponent  not  only  confuses  the  subject,  and  throws 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  understanding  what  is  sufficiently 
plain,  but  he  runs  himself  into  palpable  blasphemy,  as  1  shall 
presently  demonstrate.  So  far  is  **  Paul's"  conclusion  from 
being  correct,  that  we  <•  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,"  that  I 
know  of  no  people  on  earth  w  ho  more  fully  acknowledge  it,  than 
we  do.  WMiile  my  opponent  makes  the  Saviour  a  mortal  Divi- 
iiitij  ! — a  dying  God  ! — we  make  him  <<-the  only  wise  God  our 
Saviour."  Jude.  <«The  eternal  Spirit  manifest  in  the  flesh," 
for  our  reconciliation  and  redemption  ! 

Paul"  tells  us  that  when  he  speaks  of  «  Christ  as  a  Redeemer, 
he  speaks  of  him  as  dying  to  make  atonement  for  our  sins,  as 
giving  his  life,  a  ransom  for  many  :"  It  follows  therefore,  that 
the  redemption  which  Is  to  save  him  in  the  awful  day,  consists 
altogether  in  what  was  done  by  another  in  his  stead,  without 
any  regard  to  his  being  redeemed  from  the  pow  er  of  corruption  ! 
That  he  is  to  be  saved  in  his  sins,  not  from  his  sins  I ! — Now 


422 


Nviieii  we  speak  of  redemption  by  Christ,  we  spealt  of  ^*  an  eftec- 
tual  redemption,  a  thorough  change  ;  not  the  imputation  of 
righteousness  without  works,  but  a  real  substantial  righteous- 
ness in  the  heart  and  life,  which  may  operate  upon,  and  regu- 
late the  mind  and  will,  and  lead  us  to  a  conformity  to  his  divine 
nature :  Not  a  righteousness  imputed  to  us  from  what  Christ 
did  and  suffered,  without  us,  but  a  righteousness  raised  btj  him 
rvithin  us,  through  a  surrender  of  ourselves  to  his  government, 
and  yielding  entire  submission  to  his  heart  cleansing  refining 
power,^'    See  Fothergill's  Sermons,  Phila.  edit.  1800,  p.  65. 

But  according  to  "  Paul,'*  and  what  he  tells  us  is  **  the  idea 
which  the  orthodox  entertain,"  Jehovah  the  Redeemer  literally 
"  laid  down  his  life  for  us."  GOD  was  crucified  and  slain!  !  ! 
So  then  the  infinite  GOD  suffered  and  died, — and  that  too  by  the 
agency  of  those  creatures  he  had  made,  and  who  at  the  same 
moment  were  sustained  by  him  in  life  and  existence  ! ! ! — The 
idea  is  shocking  !  To  admit  it,  in  defiance  of  reason  and  common 
sense,  must  I  think  require  no  little  <*  stupidity.'*  It  is  impossi- 
ble the  Divine  nature  could  suffer  or  die  ! — Yet  it  must  have  been 
so  if  one  person  in  the  Godhead  was  crucified  and  killed  to  ap- 
pease the  wrath  of  another  person  in  the  Godhead,  and  to  tenable 
him  to  be  "  merciful"  to  mankind,  and  "  pardon"  them  ! ! !  If 
there  be  three  divine  persons  in  the  Godhead,  and  one  of  those 
persons  died,  then  the  time  has  been  when  the  Godhead  consist- 
ed of  two  living  members^  and  one  dead  member  I — a  time  when 
the  Deity  suffered  an  eclipse,  more  awful  than  the  destruction 
of  one  third  of  all  the  suns  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  !  ! !  But 
this  is  not  the  last  in  the  long  stringof  orthodox  absurdity,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  blood  that  was  shed  on  Calvary,  was  the  blood 
of  God!  and  the  fiesh  there  crucified  was  the  flesh  of  God!!! — 
If  this  is  not  blasphemy,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive  the  meaning 
of  the  term  ! ! ! — 

In  order,  however,  to  sustain  his  disgusting  scheme,  he 
quotes  1  John  iii.  16,  <^  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of  God, 
because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  we  ought  to  lay  down  our 
lives  for  the  brethren  "  It  is  evident  from  his  use  of  this  text, 
that  he  would  make  his  readers  believe,  that  the  Apostle  meant 
to  convey  the  idea  that  God  laid  down  his  life  for  us  "  Now 
the  original  conveys  no  such  idea! — the  pronoun  «  Ae"  in  the 
text  does  not  relate  to  the  immediate  antecedent,  in  our  trans- 
lation !  Because,  in  the  first  place,  the  words  <^  of  God"  in  this 
verse,  have  been  supplied  by  the  translators,  and  in  the  best 
editions  are  always  printed  in  Italics.  But  even  if  these  words 
should  not  be  called  in  question,  }  et  the  Greek  word  (Ekeinos) 
translated  <*  he,''  always  relates  to  a  remote  antecedent,  being 
equivalent  to  the  expression    that  there"  or  the  French  "ce- 


423 


luila."  Had  the  pronoun  ^*  he"  heen  intended  to  relate  to  (to« 
Theou)  of  God  (outos)  would  have  been  used,  which  is  the  same 
as  "  this  here" — or  the  French  *«  celui  ci" — (Ekeinos)  therefore 
must  relate  to  the  <*  Son  of  God,"  mentioned  verse  8th — and 
perhaps  the  best  translation  of  the  passage  would  be  :  "  Hereby 
perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  his  Son  laid  down  his  life 
for  us.'*  See  A.  Clarke,  in  loco.  Macknight,  Newcome.  Park- 
hurst  on  the  word  *<  Ekeinos,'*  &c. 

He  also  quotes  Acts  xx.  28>  to  support  his  shocking  theory, 
that  "  God  died»^^  Here  however  he  also  fails — the  best  trans- 
lations render  it  from  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  :  ^<Take 
heed,  &c.  to  feed  the  church  (tou  kuriou)  of  the  Lord,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood,'*  for  which  I  refer  the  rea- 
der to  the  text  of  GRIESBACH,  from  whose  collection  and 
that  of  WESTEIN,  it  appears  that  few  manuscripts,  and  none 
of  them  very  ancient,  have  the  word  (Theou)  of  God  in  the  text. 

From  what  has  been  said  and  from  the  former  essays  of  Ami- 
cus it  clearly  appears,  that  when  <•  Paul"  accuses  us  of  deny- 
ing the  divinity  of  Christ  as  our  Saviour,  our  Redeemer,  our 
Reconciler,  our  Judge,  or  as  the  object  of  our  worship,  he  is 
guilty  of  a  gross  calumny,  and  that  in  the  face  of  the  most  expli- 
cit declarations  to  the  contrary,  as  well  as  from  the  unequivo- 
cal meaning  of  very  numerous  Scripture  passages  which  I 
adduced  to  illustrate  our  views. 

And  now  fellow  Christians  you  see  the  shocking  and  irrational 
consequences  of  Trinitarianism — you  see  it  is  not  of  God,  but 
the  vile  production  of  that  wisdom  which  is  from  beneath! — It 
makes  the  ever  blessed  Jehovah  a  finite  mortal.  It  makes  the 
Deity  an  unsubstantial  Being — it  makes  the  Saviour  at  best  but 
•ne  third  part  of  a  monstrous  Divinity. — It  attributes  to  the  Cre- 
ator the  worst  passions  of  human  nature. — Are  those  who  hold 
such  doctrines  Christians  ?  are  they  even  rational  men  ?  Alas  ! 
poor  human  nature  !  What  miserable  work  does  if  make  when 
it  presumes  to  sit  in  judgment  on  divine  things  ?  We  may  pity 
their  errors — we  may  love  their  persons — we  may  pray  that 
the  scales  may  be  removed  from  their  eyes,  but  if  we  embrace 
their  opinions,  we  must  grope  with  them  in  the  noon  day  as 
in  the  night" — and  when  the  blind  lead  the  blind  they  fall  into 
the  ditch  together.  AMICUS, 


434b 

Fndaift  October  25, 1823. 

LETTER  XXXVIII. 

ON  THE  DIVINITY  AND  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 

Hay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.  JVo  man  takeih  it  from  me, 
hut  I  lay  it  down  of  myself,  I  have  power  to  lay  it  dowUy  and  I 
have  power  to  take  it  again,'*   John  x.  15,  18. 

I  HAVE  no  time  to  trifle.  And  therefore  cannot  notice  tlie 
greater  part  of  your  last  essay.  And  as  to  the  remaining  part,  it 
is  so  perfectly  in  character,  that  is,  so  perfectly  equivocal,  tliat 
if  we  attempt  to  seize  it,  like  a  slippery  eel,  it  will  elude  our 
grasp.  In  those  passages,  however,  where  he  ridicules  the 
idea  of  our  being  «♦  saved  in  the  awful  day  by  what  another  has 
done  for  us  in  our  stead when  he  says,  ^*  the  redemption 
which  we  hold,  consists  in  a  thorough  change,  not  a  righteous- 
ness imputed  to  us  from  what  Christ  did  and  suffered  without 
«s,  but  a  righteousness  raised  by  him  within  us  — in  those  pas- 
sages where  he  rejects,  with  so  much  affected  horror,  the  idea 
of  a  divine  person  dying  for  us,  and  where  he  pronounces  Scrip- 
ture expressions  »*  blasphemy" — he  has  given  such  an  exhibi- 
tion of  your  sentiments,  as  tempted  me  to  trouble  you  with  the 
foUowing  texts  : 

First,  consider  the  text  which  stands  at  the  head  of  this 
essay,  contained  in  John  x.  15, 18  :  "I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself. 
I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again.'* 

Now,  note  1.  This  speaker  must  have  been  a  divine  person. 
For  none  but  God  has  power  to  lay  down  life  and  take  it 
again." 

Note  2.  Yet  this  divine  person  is  the  same  who  actually  laid 
down  his  life  for  his  people.  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep." 
Therefore  3.  It  is  not  improper  to  say,  *<  God  laid  down  his  life 
for  us."  I  hope,  therefore,  that  hereafter  your  nerves  will  be 
^  less  shocked  by  a  Scripture  phrase  ! !  I  would  here  remark, 
however,  that  though  only  **  mortal  flesh"  (in  one  sense)  can 
die,  yet,  in  common  language,  we  predicate  the  death  of  that 
whole  person  to  whom  the  <<  mortal  flesh"  belonged.  Thus, 
when  we  say  John  died,  we  do  not  mean  that  his  soul  died,  but 
only  that  all  that  was  mortal  of  John  suffered  death.  When  we 
say  Paul  was  beheaded,  Isaiah  was  sawn  asunder,  we  do  not 
mean  that  their  souls  were  beheaded  or  sawn  asunder  !  liut  that 
part  of  them  which  was  capable  of  these  things  was  thus  served. 
So,  when  the  Bible  tells  us  that  «  God,"  (or  as  Middleton  tells 
us  from  the  best  MSS.  it  ought  to  be  rendered  <«  the  Lord  God) 


425 


purchased  the  ehurcli  with  his  own  hlood,^^  Acts  xx.  28  ;  we  do 
not  understand  that  the  divine  nature  suffered,  tor  of  suffering 
it  is  incapable ;  but  w  e  understand  that  that  *•  mortal  tlesh" 
which  was  crucified,  and  tliat  **  blood''  w  hich  was  shed  upon 
Mount  Calvary,  belonged  not  to  a  mere  man,  but  to  the  mightij 
God. 

Secondly  ;  Look  at  Phil.  ii.  5  ;  "  Let  this  mind  be  in  you  which 
was  also  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God;  yet  made  himself  of  no 
reputation,  and  took  upon  him  theybr»i  of  a  servant,  and  w'as 
made  in  the  likeness  of  man.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a 
man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even 
the  death  of  the  cross."  Note  here,  as  before,  1.  That  the  per- 
son spoken  of  was  divine.  For  he  was  **in  the  form  of  God, 
and  thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,^^  and  of  course 
was  God. 

Yet,  2.  This  same  divine  person  is  here  said  to  have  assum- 
ed humanity,  and  to  have  submitted  to  death.  He  humbled 
himself,  and  became  obedient  even  unto  death.'^  And  yet  you 
sav,  it  is  unscriptural  to  sav  God  laid  down  his  life  for  us  /  ! 

While,  however,  1  contend  for  this  phrase,  I  do  it  not  because 
these  terms  are  of  themselves  of  much  importance,  but  because, 
along  with  the  terms,  you  reject  the  doctrine  of  divine  atone- 
ment ! 

Thirdly;  Attentively  weigh  2  Cor.  viii.  9;  Ye  know  the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  wlio,  though  he  was  rich,  yet 
for  our  sakes  he  btcame  poor,  that  we,  througli  his  poverty,  might 
be  rich."  Here  remember,  1.  Jesus  Christ  was  never  rich 
while  on  earth;  his  riches,"  therefore,  must  allude  to  his 
previous  existence,  in  other  \vord8,  to  his  eternal  divinity  **  He 
was  rich,"  But,  2.  This  same  person  afterwards  became  poor. 
«  He  who  was  rich,  for  our  sakes  became  jjoor.'^  Therefore,  3. 
It  is  proper  to  speak  of  the  poverty,  suffering,  deathy  and  other 
parts  of  the  **  humiliation,"  as  endured  by  a  divine  person, — 
by  one  who,  before  his  incarnation,  was  infinitely  rich.  It  is 
proper  to  say,  that  God  made  himself  of  no  reputation — be- 
came poor — suffered — died,  and  was  buried.  Scripture  au- 
thorises all  these  phrases,  because  the  Redeemer  was  God. 

Fourthly  ;  If  you  still  doubt,  consider  Rev.  i.  5  :  Unto  him 
that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and 
tias  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  even  his  Father,  to 
him  be  glory  and  dominion,  both  now  and  forever!"  Here  ob- 
serve, 1.  The  person  here  alluded  to  must  be  divine  ;  for  he  is 
here  publicly  worshipped^  and  glory  and  dominion  ascribed  to 
him  forever  and  ever.  Besides,  he  is  said  to  *•  wash  from  sin," 
"vhich  is  the  work  of  God  alone.  «  Unto  him  thsit  washed  us," 
5i 


426 


Yet  2,  This  same  divine  person  once  died.  For  it  is  said 
that  he  hath  «« loved  us  and  waslied  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
bloody''  or  by  his  death.  The  sensibility,  therefore,  which 
shrinks  and  cries  **  biaspheni},"  when  the  scenes  of  Calvaiy 
are  described  as  the  sufferings  of  a  divine  person — is  rather  of 
a  morbid  kind  ! 

Again  ;  in  the  same  chapter,  John  heard  a  voice  behind  him, 
saying :  «  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last and 
turning  he  saw  <*  (»ne  like  unto  the  Son  of  Man,"  who  laid  his 
hand  upon  him  and  said  :  Fear  not,  I  am  the  first  and  the  last ; 
I  am  lie  that  liveth  and  was  dead,^'  And  in  the  second  chapter 
Sth  verse,  the  same  person  says  :  These  things  saith  the  first 
and  the  last,  he  which  was  dead  and  is  alive,"  Rev.  i.  17, 
and  ii.  8. 

Observ^e  1.  The  person  speaking  was  God,  for  he  w  as  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last.  Yet  2.  This  same  divine 
person  says  he  was  once  dead.  1  am  he  which  was  dead  and 
is  alive."  All  the  shockingness  and  profaneness,"  therefore 
which  you  ascribe  to  us  in  regarding  the  atonement  upon  Cal- 
vary as  divine,  you  may  ascribe  to  our  Lord  himself! ! 

Again ;  if  you  are  not  yet  satisfied  that  a  divine  person  was 
slain  for  us,  read  Rev.  v.  12  :  "  And  I  heard  the  voice  of  many 
angels  around  about  the  throne,  and  the  living  creatures,  and 
the  elders,  and  the  numbers  of  them  was  ten  thousand  times 
ten  thousand,  and  thousands  of  thousands,  saying  with  a  loud 
voice  :  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  power 
and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  honour,  and  glory 
and  blessing," — (see  the  whole  chapter,  and  also  chapter  se- 
venth.) 

Note  1.  This  «  Lamb"  must  have  been  a  divine  person,  or 
he  would  not  have  been  thus  worshipped.  But  2.  Though  di- 
vine he  is  said  to  have  been  slavi.  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that 
was  slain.^'  There  is  therefore  no  impropriety  in  saying  that 
He  who  died  on  Calvary  was  God.  That  which  was  suspended 
on  the  cross  was  not  simply  a  piece  of  «<  mortal  flesh,"  but  the 
Lamb  of  God  who  there  took  away  the  guilt  of  the  world. 

But  you  still  think  it  a  horrible  thing  that  the  Creator  should 
suffer  himself  to  be  crucified  and  abused  by  <*  the  agency  of 
those  creatures  he  had  made,  and  who  at  the  same  time  were 
sustained  by  him  in  life  and  existence  ! ! !" 

That  is,  such  things  arc  *<  too  high  for  you,"  they  are  above 
your  "reasow,"  and  beyond  your  "  comprehension.'^  Very  true, 
and  if  an  Unitarian  had  contrived  the  way  of  salvation,  we 
should  have  had  no  such  mysteries — in  fact  should  have  had  no 
Saviour, — and  no  God  but  what  we  could  comprehend  1 1  But  God 
never  intended  the  universe  to  be  contained  in  a  nut-shell ! ! — 


427 


nor  that  man  sliould  know  more  than  Himself.  He  lias  never 
asked  our  counsel,  or  inquired  wlietlu-r  his  salvation  would  suit 
our  speculations;  but  he  has  told  us  facts  and  we  must  believe 
thetn  or  perish.  And  one  of  these  facts  is  that  which  gives 
you  siich  a  shuddering,  to  wii :  that  ihe  giver  of  life  should 
suff.  r  his  creatures  to  put  Him  to  death  J  JBut  you  doubt! 
therefore 

Again  ;  read  Acts  ii.  14, 15,  and  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith 
to  the  Jews:  *•  But  ye  denied  the  Holy  One  and  the  Just, 
and  killed  the  Prince  of  Life  ! !" 

Tl»e  title  Prince  of  Life,"  or  Author  Life,  as  the  meaning 
is,  is  one  of  the  highest  titles  given  to  our  Lord  in  Scripture; 
in  tact,  must  be  a  title  inapplicable  to  any  creature,  and  as  pe- 
culiar to  God  as  the  name  **  Jehovah." 

The  same  idea  is  conveyed  in  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  Which  none  of 
the  princes  of  this  world  knew ;  for  had  they  known  it,  they 
would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory  !"  The  Lord  of 
Glory,"  and  the  God  »)f  Glory,"  are  equivalent  terms  or  titles, 
and  equally  denote  the  divinity  of  Him  to  whom  they  are  ap- 
plied. But  this  Lord  of  Glory,  whs  crucified  /"  i.  e.  nailed  to 
a  cross,  pierced,  wounded,  tortured  and  killed  I — Grant,  it  is 
«  shocking''  and  aw^ful  ! — but  it  is  fact  ! 

Yes  ;  it  is  a  fact !  a  divinely  attested  fact !  and  one  which 
more  than  all  things  else  in  the  universe,  speaks  the  infinite 
evil  of  sin, — the  inflexible  justice  of  God, — the  holiness  of  the 
Law. — the  certainty  of  salvation  to  all  who  believe. — and  the 
certainty  of  damnation  to  all  who  disbelieve  !  The  cross  of 
Chrlst,  or  the  sufferings  of  the  Lord  of  glory  in  our  room  and 
stead,  are  the  main  theme  and  glory  of  the  whole  New  Testa- 
ment. Not  only  Paul,  but  all  the  Apostles  abhorred  the  thought 
of«  glorying,  save  in  the  cross  of  Christy  by  the  which  they  were 
crucified  to  the  world,  and  the  world  unto  them  !"  The  suffer- 
ings of  the  Lamb,  as  we  have  seen,  are  the  theme  and  song  of 
all  the  heavenly  host,  and  *•  unto  Him,  that  loved  us  and  wash- 
ed us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,"  will  be  the  song  of  the 
redeemed  forever ! 

In  this  song,  however,  you  can  never  join  !  you  are  too  proud 
to  be  "  saved  by  what  another  has  accomplished  in  your  stead 
you  are  unwilling  to  be  justified  by  the  righteousness  w!iich 
Christ  wrought  without  you;~y4)u  think  it  **  unmerciful"  in 
God  to  reqsiire  a  satisfaction  of  his  creatures ;  and  with  ridi- 
cul»'-  and  contempt,  reject  the  doctrine  of  one  person  in  the 
Godhead  dying  to  make  atonement  to  another  !  ! !  All  things 
relating  to  the  atonement  are  in  your  view  orthodox  absur- 
dities ! !"  But  I  must  appeal  to  a  candid  public,  if  the  pas- 
sages I  have  quoted  do  not  prove 


db28 

1.  The  doctrine  of  atonemenU — or  salvation  by  the  death  of  a 
divine  substitute.  They  attribute  our  life  to  liis  death  ;  «  1  lay 
down  my  life  for  (or  instead  of)  the  sheep."  They  attribute 
our  cleansing  to  his  bloody  **  who  hath  washed  us  from  our  sins 
in  his  own  blood.^^  Our  riches  to  his  poverty;  **for  our  sakes 
he  became  poor  that  we  might  be  rich." — Our  redemption  to  his 
blood  :  **  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  he  had  purchased  with 
his  own  blood,'*  In  short,  they  teach  wliat  all  Scripture  teaches, 
that  "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities.  All  we  like  sheep  had  gone  astray  and  the 
Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  Isa.  iiii.  5,  6.  "  So 
Christ  was  once  olFered  to  bear  the  sin  of  many; — and  by  his 
one  offering  he  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are  sanctifi- 
ed." Heb.  ix.  28,  and  x.  14. 

2.  They  prove  tliat  the  atonement  was  made  by  a  divine  per- 
son. This  is  proved  by  the  titles,  attributes,  works  and  wor- 
ship attributed  in  these  texts  to  him  wl»o  died.  He  was  "  in 
the  form  of  God"  and  equal  with  God,"  is  termed  the  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last ;"  he  had  *'  power  to  lay 
down  his  life  and  to  take  it  again,"  and  is  worshipped  by  all 
the  host  of  heaven,  who  continually  ascribe  to  him  «  honour 
and  glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever." 

3.  They  prove  a  distinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead,  Clirist 
is  said  to  be  equal  with  Gt)d,"  which  implies  a  comparisorif 
and  of  course  a  numerical  and  personal  distinction.  He  is  said 
to  have  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  even  his  Father,"^ 
which  is  another  proof  of  distinction.  And  in  the  context,  glory, 
is  ascribed  not  only  "  to  Him  who  sitteth  on  the  throne,"  (the 
Father,)  but  «  unto  the  Lamb  forever."  '1 

These  passages,  as  well  as  a  multitute  of  others,  to  every 
humble  childlike  reader  of  the  Bible,  clearly  indicate  a  dis-v 
tinction  of  persons  in  the  Godhead. 

Thus,  my  dear  friends,  instead  of  answering  personal  insults, 
returning  railing  for  railing,  wasting  time  and  paper,  and 
abusing  the  public  patience  by  evading  the  points  in  controver- 
sy, I  have  brought  before  you  fundamental  truths, — doctrines 
as  valuable  as  your  souls,— without  believing  which,  1  am  as 
sure  as/)f  any  truth  in  revelation,  no  man  can  be  saved. 

The  religion  which  you  are  taught  hy  your  preachers,  in 
your  printed  sermons,  and  other  books,  (I  speak  in  the  fear  of 
God)  contains  no  Saviour  J  Fothergill,  one  of  your  most  popular 
preachers,  from  whom  "Amicus,"  in  his  last,  made  a  long  quota- 
tion, in  his  dying  exercises,  makes  no  mention  of  a  Saviour's 
righteousness  ! — in  four  out  of  five  long  Prayers  affixed  to  l^s 
Sermons,  makes  not  a  petition  in  the  name  of  Emmanuel ! — and 
has  but  one  sentence,  and  that  of  a  very  general  kind,  of  eon- 


429 


rcssioii  for  sin  ! !  A  fair  specimen  of  your  conversation  with 
dyini^  sinners,  was  mentioned  to  me  a  few  days  ago  by  a  near 
relative  of  one  of  the  w  itnesses.  A  clergyman  formerly  settled 
in  Dover  in  lliis'state,  went  one  day  to  visit  a  criminal  confined 
in  that  place,  who  was  condemned  shortly  to  die.  Some  how 
)r  other,  a  *•  public  friend"  happened  there  at  the  same  time. 
The  clergyman  talked  with  the  culprit,  set  before  him  his  crime 
jn  all  its  blackness,  and  warned  and  exhorted  him  to  immediate 
repentence  of  this  and  all  his  other  sins.  He  told  him  of  the 
Saviour's  object  in  visiting  our  world  to  make  atonement  for 
human  sins,  so  that  now  whosoever  would  believe  on  Him  might 
be  saved.  After  talking  some  time,  supposing  the  friend" 
would  wish  to  say  something,  he  drew  back,  and  waited  in  si- 
lence. Presently,  this  follower  of  internal  light,  this  blind 
leader  of  the  blind,  addressed  him  in  substance  thus  :  •*  Friend, 
thou  hast  committed  a  great  crime,  for  which  thou  deservest  to 
be  punished.  Now  what  I  advise  thee  to  do,  is  cheerfully  to  sub- 
mit thyself  to  thy  fate,  as  the  only  satisfaction  thou  canst  make  to 
iiistice  ' ! ! — Such  preaching,  at  such  a  season,  to  such  a  person, 
shocked  even  the  hardened  Gaol  keeper,  who  as  they  went  out, 
said  to  the  clergyman  *»Did  you  ever  hear  such  awful  language 
to  a  dying  sinner  ?"  Such  a  religion  might  have  suited  an  Aure- 
lius  or  a  Socrates,  but  will  never  suit  a  Christian.  PAUL. 


Sixth-day,  11th  r,io.  1,  1822. 

LETTER  XXXIX. 

It  is  an  irrefragable  evidence  of  the  falsity  of  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed,  that  the  more  it  is  investigated  the  more  its  absur- 
dity, its  shocking  and  blasphemous  consequences  appear.  In 
my  last  by  fair  induction  from  his  own  positions,  I  demonstrat- 
ed the  revolting  fact,  that  mv  opponent  holds  the  doctrine  that 
THE  DIVINE  NATURE  WAS  MORTAL— that  GOD 
the  GREAT  FIRST  CAUSE,  the  CREATOR  and  SUP^ 
PORTER  OF  THE  UNIVERSE  was  subject  to  death,  and 
that  he  was  actually  slain  on  ^^Iount  Calvary  !/  J 

The  gross  and  irrational  nature  of  this  doctrine  is  calculated 
to  produce  such  universal  disgust,  that  I  expected  my  oppo- 
nent would  in  his  reply  make  a  vigorous  attempt  to  overthrow 
my  conclusions.  In  this  however  I  have  been  disappointed  ! 
His  last  address  presents  to  view  a  very  exhausted  intellect, 
striving  by  a  weak  and  incongruous  effort,  at  once  to  evade  the 
force,  and  establish  the  truth  of  my  position  as  firmly  as  possible. 


4f3U 

He  endeavours  to  evade  the  force  of  my  position  (after  saying 
that  "  God  actually  laid  down  his  life  for  us";  by  the  following 
remark — although  only  mortal  flesh,  in  one  sense  can  die,  yet 
in  common  language  we  predicate  the  death  of  that  whole  person 
to  whom  the  mortal  flesh  belonged.  Thus  when  we  say  Jolm 
died,  we  do  not  mean  that  his  soul  died,  but  only  all  that  was 
mortal  of  John  suff*ered  death.  When  we  say  Paul  was  beheaded, 
Isaiah  was  sawn  asunder,  we  do  not  mean  that  their  souls  were 
beheaded  or  sawn  asunder  !  but  that  part  of  them  that  was  ca- 
jjable  of  these  things  was  thus  served."  By  this  very  learned  ex- 
position of  the  meaning  of  **  common  language,"  he  meant  to 
convey  a  kind  of  dim,  half-formed  idea,  that  when  we  speak 
of  the  death  of  Christ,  •<  we  only  mean  that  all  that  was  mortal" 
in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ♦<  suffered  death!" — Iftliiswere  not  his 
intention,  1  am  quite  at  a  loss  to  discover  how  his  remarks  can 
liave  any  relevancy  to  his  subject ! ! !  If  this  were  his  intentiim, 
he  stands  before  the  public  in  the  character  of  a  prevaricator. 
But  let  us  now  recur  to  the  conclusion  he  draws  from  this  dis- 
play of  the  meaning  of  ««  common  language  !"  To  his  conclu- 
sion, which  is  one  of  the  most  singular  specimens  of  equivoca- 
lion  that  I  remember  to  have  noticed,  I  would  draw  the  particu- 
lar attention  of  our  readers  ! — So  when  the  Bible  tells  us  that 
God  purchased  the  church  with  his  own  blood,"  {which,  by  the 
way,  it  never  meant  to  tell  us,  as  I  have  before  shown)  *<  we  do 
not  understand  that  the  divine  nature  suff*ered,  for  of  suffering 
it  is  incapable.'^'  Here  **  Paul"  had  nearly  been  shipwrecked 
on  the  shores  of  Unitarianism  ! — but  by  a  dexterous  manoeuvre 
he  turned  about  and  made  directly  for  the  port  of  TritheismH! 
"But,"  says  he,  "we  understand  that  the  mortal  flesh  which 
was  crucified,  and  that  blood  which  was  shed  on  Mount  Calva- 
ry,  belonged  not  to  a  mere  m.an,  but  to  the  mighty  God  ///" 

Let  us  now  see  if  it  be  possible  to  pick  any  meaning  out  of 
this  equivocal  piece  of  jargon.  First,  he  tells  us  "  the  divine 
nature  is  incapable  of  suffering." — Now  if  the  divine  nature  be 
incapable  of  suffering,  it  must  be  incapable  of  dying  I  and  conse- 
quently "  Paui.''  overturns  his  own  theory — he  contradicts  his 
preceding  and  subsequent  assertions!  "  God  did  not  lay  down 
his  life  ! !  !"—*<  The  God  of  Glorv  was  not  slain  ! ! !"— "  It  is  not  a 
fact  that  <*  the  Giver  of  life  suffered  his  creatures  to  put  him  to 
death  ! ! !" — unless,  indeed,  man  could  put  his  Creator  to  death, 
without  inflicting  upon  him  any  suff*ering  ! ! !  Secondly.  He 
asserts  that  "  the  mortal  flesh  which  was  crucified,  and  that 
blood  that  was  shed  on  Calvary  belonged  not  to  a  mere  man,  but 
to  the  mighty  God  !"  Now  what  are  we  to  understand  by  this  ? 
Are  we  to  believe  that  xhe  flesh  and  blood  alluded  to,  are  parts 
of  the  Deity  ?   Or  are  we  to  understand  they  were  only  his  pro- 


4>Si 

])erUj?  If  they  were  parts  of  the  Diety  ?  they  were  "  incapabit 
of  suffer  ing,"  upon  Paux*s"  own  acknowledgement;  itthey 
were  not  divine,  then  God  did  not  die,  and  consequently  my  op- 
ponent's theory  falls  to  the  ground  ! — Thirdly,  he  has  told  us 
that  "  only  niortal  flesh,  in  one  sense,  can  die."  Now  if  that 
were  only  mortal fiesli'^  that  died  on  Calvary,  where  does  he 
find  his  dead  God  ?  If  it  were  not  **  only  mortal  flesh,"  then 
something  besides  "  mortal  flesh"  can  die — then  the  divine 
nature  is  capable  of  suffering ! ! !  Let  "  Paul"  choose  either 
alternative  and  he  contradicts  himself! 

The  subsequent  parts  of  his  Letter  do  not  however  leave  us 
in  any  doubt  as  to  the  part  he  will  choose  ! — iie  soon  gives  us 
a  fine  specimen  of  theological  science  !  He  eagerly  presses  on 
his  reader  the  awful  and  blasphemous  idea,  that  **  JEHOVAH, 
THE  AUTHOR  OF  LIFE,  THE  CREATOR  OF  THE 
WORLD— WAS  ABUSED  AND  KILLED,  and  that  hy  the 
agency  of  the  creatures  he  had  made,  and  who  at  the  same  time 
were  sustained  by  him  in  life  and  existence  ! ! !" 

When  such  absurd  and  disgusting  doctrine  as  this,  is  held  up 
to  public  view,  as  a  part  of  the  Christian  system,  it  is  no  won- 
der there  is  so  much  deism  in  the  world.  It  has  made  more  in- 
fidels a  thousand  fold,  than  the  whole  train  of  deistical  writers 
put  togetlier. 

it  is  believed  by  all  but  atheists,  that  matter  is  inert — that  all 
visible  nature  is  perpetually  sustained  by  divine  power — that 
as  human  creatures  we  are  incapable  of  drawing  a  single  breath, 
but  through  the  strength  immediately  communicated  from  the 
eternal  source  of  life  and  motion — the  author  of  our  existence — 
that  if  this  power  were  suspended/or  a  single  moment^  universal 
ruin  would  instantly  ensue — creation  would  be  annihilated,  all 
nature  would  return  to  its  original  nonentity  ! ! ! — Now  if  this 
view  be  correct,  "  Paul's"  theory  must  be  false  !  At  that  very 
moment  when  "Jesus  bowed  his  head  and  gave  up  the  Ghost," 
John  xix.  30,  all  this  beauteous  creation,  our  earth  and  "  the 
silvery  moon  its  fair  attendant,"  the  *'  sun  that  shines  by  day," 
the  "  ten  thousand  that  shine  by  night,"  with  all  their  satellites, 
must  have  *'  sunk  into  everlasting  obscurity."  And  so  "  Paul," 
the  chivalrous  champion  for  the  honours  of  Trinitarianism, 
would  not  have  been  here  to  blaspheme  that  glorious  and  eternal 
divinity,  "  in  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being 
with  whom  there  is  no  variableness  neither  shadow  of  turn- 
ing;" from  whom  are  "  the  issues  of  life,"  and  without  whom 
eternal  chaos  must  reign  sole  monarch  of  an  interminable 
dreary  void  !!!  Acts  xvii.  23.  James  i.  17.  Prov.  iv.  23. 

In  my  former  essays,  I  have  shown  that  the  man  Christ  Je- 
sus," 1  Tim.  ii.  5.   who  was  made  of  a  woman,"  Gal.  iv.  ^.  was 


432 


made  like  unto  his  brethren,"  Heb.  ii.  IT. « touched  with  a  feel- 
in;^  of  our  infirmities — 'tempted  like  as  we  are."  Heb.  iv.  15. 
«  made  perfect  through  suffering,"  Heb.  ii,  10.  "  He  learned 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered,"  Heb.  v.  8.  in- 
creased in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favour  with  God  and  man," 
Luke  ii.  52.  He  passed  through  all  the  stages  of  life,  from  the 
innocent  helpless  infant,  to  the  perfection  of  manhood.    He  was 

a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief,"  Isa.  liii.  3. 
a  man,  he  had  his  hopes  and  fears — his  comforts  and  afflic- 
tions— as  a  man,  he  was  subject  to  hunger  and  thirst  and  pain 
and  conflict — as  a  man,  he  shrunk  with  horror  at  the  prospect 
of  a  painful  death — "  he  sweat  as  it  were  great  drops  of  bh>od," 
Luke  XX.  44 ;  and  finally,  as  a  man  he  died  in  agony,  and  was 
buried  !   It  is  impossible  that  all  this  could  be  said  of  the  Deity  ! 

the  divine  nature  as  my  opponent  acknowledges  *»is  in- 
capable of  suffering  ;"  consequently,  the  Scriptures  quoted,  do 
not  relate  to  the  divine  nature  and  thus  the  sacred  penmen 
have  fully  relieved  us  from  the  necessity  of  admitting  that  *'  the 
Creator  of  the  world  was  killed.'' 

In  the  beginning  was  the  WORD,  and  the  Word  was  with 

God,  and  THE  WORD  WAS  GOD  All  things  were  made  by 

Him." — This  divine,  living,  all-powerful  Word,  who  spake 
and  worlds  sprang  into  existence  ;  who  said  :  <*  Let  there  be 
light,"  and  instantly  a  thousand  suns  flamed  in  the  firmament 
of  heaven  ;  in  infinite  mercy,  for  the  redemption  of  sinful  man, 
was  manifested  in  the  flesh."  For  he  took  not  on  him  the 
nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham." 
Heb.  ii.  16.  Thus  CHRIST  as  the  SAVIOUR,  the  RE- 
DEEMER,  th€  RECONCILER,  the  JUDGE  of  a  lost  World, 
was  GOD  MANIFEST  IN  THE  FLESH.  1  1  im.  iii.  16.  the 
eternal  fountain  of  divine  life  and  light !"  For  in  him  was  life, 
and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men." — and  HE  "  was  the  true  light 
that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  John  i.  1, 
3,  4,  9. 

It  was  in  this  divine  character,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh," 
that  bending  ovt^r  the  tomb  of  Lazarus,  he  cried  with  a  loud 
voice :  "  Lazarus  come  forth,"  when  lo  !  the  dead  instantly 
obeyed,  life  resumed  her  dominion,  «  and  he  came  forth  bound 
hand  and  foot,  with  grave  clothes."  John  xi.  43,  44. — It  was  in 
this  divine  character  that  he  went  into  the  chamber  of  the  de- 
ceased damsel,  and  taking  her  by  the  hand,  said  :  "  Talitha 
cumi,  which  is,  being  interpreted, damsel  I  say  unto  thee  arise!'' 
when  instantly  she  was  wrested  from  the  grasp  of  death,  and 
restored  unto  her  weeping  relatives,  a  blooming  trophy  of  that 
power,  which  is  indeed  « the  resurrection  and  the  life,'*  Mark  v. 
41. 42. — It  was  in  this  divine  character  that  "  he  arose  and  ro 


453 


buked  the  svind,  and  said  unto  the  sea,  peace  he  still  and 
the  wind  ceased,  and  there  was  a  great  calm  !  Mark  iv.  39.— 
It  was  in  this  divine  character,  that  "  Jesus  cried,  saying:  If 
any  man  thirst,  li  t  him  come  unto  me  and  drink  — and  again  : 
"  SVhosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that  1  sliall  give  him,  shall 
never  thirst,  but  the  water  that  I  shall  give  him,  shall  be  in 
him,  a  well  of  w  ater  springing  up  unto  everlasting  life  — and 
again  :  **  I  am  the  bread  of  life — he  that  cometh  to  me,  shall 
never  hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on  me,  shall  never  thirst." 
John  iv.  li.  vii.  37,  38.  vi.  35. 

By  failing  to  make  this  distinction,  men  have  run  into  the 
grossest  errors  concerning  the  divine  nature^ — With  the  Bible 
in  their  hands  they  have  taught  doctrines,  which  would  dis- 
grace the  Koran  of  Mahomet,  the  Vedas  of  the  Bramin,  or  the 
religion  of  our  Indians  ! — doctrines  unknown  to  the  primitive 
Christians — having  their  origin  in  a  dark  and  turbulent  era, 
when  the  church  had  apostatized  from  Christ,  her  divine  head- 
when  she  had  forsaken  Him,  •*  the  fountain  of  living  water,^^ 
and  had  "  hewed  out"  to  herself  «  cisterns,  (systems  of  divinity,) 
broken  cisterns,  that  could  hold  no  water.'*  Thus,  age  after 
age  rolled  away  ! — One  degi  ee  of  darkness  succeeded  to  an- 
other, until  her  glory  had  departed,  and  like  fallen  Babylon, 
she  had  become  a  den  of  wild  beasts,  a  habitation  of  dragons — 
a  court  for  owls — and  a  dancing  place  f(»r  satyrs.  Isa.  xiii.  21,  22. 

When  at  last,  the  professed  clairch  of  Christ  had  lapsed  into 
this  awful  and  filthy  state, — when  every  vestige  of  her  primi- 
tive beauty  was  obliterated,  God  in  condescending  mercy  rais- 
ed up  a  few"  worthy  and  intrepid  reformers,  who  according  to 
the  measure  of  light  and  knowledge  they  had  received,  labour- 
ed faithfully  for  a  restoration  to  her  original  purity! — Under 
their  circumstances,  they  did  much  for  the  honour  of  the  glori- 
ous cause  tliey  had  espoused. — In  their  situation,  it  is  rather 
cause  of  admiration  that  they  eftected  so  much,  than  matter  of 
censure  that  they  did  no  more ! — But  it  is  certain,  they  left 
much  undone  for  their  successors  to  do. — Unhappily  for  the 
cause  of  Christianity,  thtir  disciples  instead  of  considering  them 
as  pioneers  in  the  work  of  reformation,  were  so  weak  as  to  be- 
lieve that  the  great  object  was  already  accomplished  ! — Under 
this  impression,  they  set  themselves  down  at  ease,  on  the  labours 
of  their  predecessors,  and  thus  left  the  work  unfinished,  and 
the  church  embarrassed  with  numerous  errors,  the  fruit  of  the 
apostacy — and  among  these  the  absurd  and  pernicious  doctrine 
of  a    Trinity  of  persons  in  the  divine  nature  !  ! !" 

Trusting  and  believing,  that  every. rational  and  unprejudiced 
Christian,  (and  I  address  myself  in  a  particular  manner  to  such 
of  my  readers)  must  see  the  absurdity  of  the  Manasian  scheme^ 
55 


43^ 

and  reject  with  horror  every  sentiment  which  is  liostilc  to  tJit 
unity  of  the  Deity,  I  will  proceed  to  answer  the  arj^uments  of 
my  opponent,  in  support  of  his  irrational  and  monstrous  the- 
ory ! ! ! 

And  first,  we  will  consider  the  passage,  John  x.  15,  18  :  '*I 
lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but 
I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  /  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  1 
have  power  to  take  it  again !  !"  Hence,  «*  Paul"  concludes, 

the  speaker  must  have  been  a  divine  person!  For,"  he  says, 

none  but  God  has  power  to  lay  down  life  and  take  it  again.^^ 
This  conclusion,  however,  is  unwarranted  by  the  text — it  sup- 
poses what  is  not  granted,  and  what  is  positively  denied  by  our 
Lord  himself! ! ! — to  wit,  that  this  power  was  not  derived  from 
God  ! — The  very  sentence  folhiwing  **  Paul's"  quotation,  and 
in  the  same  verse  of  which  he  has  cited  a  part,  contradicts  his 
assumption  :  "  This  commandment  have  I  received  of  my  Fa- 
ther I ! !" — and  it  is  still  more  clearly  contradicted,  where  Christ 
says  :  *«  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.*' 
Matt,  xxviii.  i8. 

The  power  to  lay  down  lifc^  by  submitting  cheerfully  to  the 
violence  of  wicked  men,  has  been^ire/ito  thousands,  as  by  re- 
ference to  the  martyrology  of  Europe,  Asia  and  America,  is 
very  evident.  The  <*  power  to  take  it  again^^  always  did,  and 
always  must  remain,  in  the  hand  of  the  Deity — unless  when 

given"  by  him  to  another,  as  our  Lord  expressly  declared  it 
was  to  himself!  Th^it  this  power  was  the  poxver  of  God  delegat- 
ed to  Christ,  is  indubitably  proved  by  otlier  explicit  testimony 
derived  from  himself:  "Verily,  the  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself" — I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing" — <*  Ye  shall 
know  that  I  do  nothing  of  myself,"  John  v,  19,  30.  viii.  28. 
Thus      Paul's"  reasoning  is   proved  fallacious  1   and  our 

nerves"  have  been  "shocked"  by  what  he  calls  "a  Scrip- 
ture phrase,"  but  which  is  nothing  more  than  his  absiird  and 
shocking  conclusion,  drawn  from  his  own  preposterous  notions 
of  the  divine  nature  ! ! ! 

The  text,  Phil.  ii.  5,  which,  speaking  of  Christ,  says;  "  Who 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God,"  presents  no  difficulty,  when  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  other  Scripture  passages  :  '*  God  was  in  Christ,'^'  said 
the  Apostle,  2  Cor.  v.  19.  «  In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of 
the  Godhead,"  Col.  ii.  9,  and  «*  in  him  were  hid  all  the  trea- 
sures of  wisdom  and  knowledge,"  Col.  ii.  3.  Considering 
Christ  in  this  point  of  view,  it  certainly  could  not  ro6  the  Deity 
of  any  part  of  his  honour,  to  consider  Christ  "  equal  with  God!'' 
The  conclusion  is  irresistible:  ChrisU  in  unity  with  the  Deity, 
may  "fee  equal  with  God^*^  while  it  is  contended,  in  the  Ian- 


435 


guage  of  the  Apostle,  that  he  was  «  made  like  unto  his  bre* 
thrt'ii  ;  ami  in  his  own  language,  that  he  of  himself  could  do 
nothing ! ! !" 

0  From  the  text,  2  Cor.  viii.  9 :  Ye  know  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  thotigh  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes 
he  became  p«)or,  that  ye  through  his  poverty  might  be  rich," 
•*  Paul"  draws  this  strained  and  unwarranted  conclusion:  "  It 
is  proper  to  say  that  God  made  himself  of  no  reputation  !"  that 
he  *•  became  pocr" — **  suffered" — died  and  was  buried  ! ! !" 
In  the  present  instance,  I  think  1  may  appeal  to  the  reason, 
good  sense  and  candor  of  every  rational  Christian,  whether 
my  opponent's  reasoning  is  not  blasphemous  !  Can  it  be  pos- 
sible that  the  Apostie,  who  was  a  man  of  judgment  in  natural 
and  divine  things,  could  suppose  that  God  the  Creator  ever 
"  died  and  was  buried  that  He,  <«  of  whom  are  all  things,  and 
by  whom  are  all  things,"  1  Cor.  viii.  6,  became  defunct— ^ihsit 
he  ceased  to  exist  J  and  was  buried  in  the  sepulchre  of  Joseph 

■  of  Arimathea ! — can  that  sensibility  which  shrinks  and  cries 
blasphemy"  at  such  sentiments  as  these,  be  deemed  of  a  <«  mor- 
bid" kind  ?  I  think  it  will  be  more  just  to  say,  that  he  who  en- 
tertains such  sentiments,  has  neither  sense  nor  sensibility  !'* 
Deeply  involved  in  darkness  and  error,  like  the  maniac  wan- 
dering among  the  tombs,  he  may  claim  our  pity — but  as  a  guide 
he  must  be  considered  as  the  <*  blind  leader,"  whose  final  des- 
tiny is  a  ditch  ! !  !  That  our  Lord  was  rich"  in  divine  wisdom 
and  power,  is  certain,  and  that  for  the  sake  of  poor  sinful  man, 
he  led  a  life  of  poverty  in  this  w^^rld,  is  equally  true  ;  but  hence 
to  infer  that  he  was  "  a  divine  person,^^  is  ridiculous,  although  it 
is  about  as  gof)d  logic  as  my  opponent  has  displayed  in  the  other 
parts  of  his  Letter ! 

The  arguments  drawn  from  passages  in  the  book  of  Revela- 
tion, where  our  Lord  is  frequently  spoken  of  in  a  two-fold 
character,  have  no  force  against  us  who  freely  acknowledge  his 
divinity.  It  is  true,  that  Christ  as  one  with  the  Father,  ^*  the 
Word  that  was  God,"  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and 
the  last — as  the  son  of  the  virgin  Mary,  it  is  not  true  of  him. 
As  it  regards  his  humanity,  the  time  was  when  he  did  not  exist. 
To  say  that  a  divine  Being  was  dead,  is  a  contradiction  in  lan- 
guage. It  is  in  fact  to  deny  his  divinity — the  divine  nature 
is  incapable  of  suffering,"  as  "Paul"  is  forced  to  acknow- 
ledge. 

"  But  that  God  was  killed  by  the  agency  of  the  creatures  he 
had  made,  are  things  too  high  for  you — they  are  above  your  rea- 
son  and  beyond  your  comprehension.''  This  I  freely  admit; 
and  further,  they  are  contrary  toreason^  and  are  absolute  impos- 
sibilities! ! !  Dogmas  suited  to  a  bedlam,  and  only  adapted  to 


^56 


tlic  sp^ecli  of  a  maniac ! !!  A  transition  from  life  to  death  is  the 
greatest  possible  change  that  can  be  contemplated  !  But  Godis 
immutabky  unchangeable,  **  the  same  yesterday,  to-day  and  for- 
ever"— **with  him  there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of* 
turning.''  From  tlie  whole  compass  of  words  constituting  lan- 
guage, a  more  false  and  absurd  sentence  could  not  be  formed, 
ihan  that  **  God  died  !" 

I  will  now  notice  a  few  of  his  general  remarks :  He  begins 
by  telling  us,  he  has  *<  no  time  to  trifle,''    It  would  have  been 
well  if  his  address  did  not  contradict  his  assertion  ! — It  appears 
he  had  time  to  fabricate  trifling  tales,  no  way  connected  with 
liis  subject,  and  to  make  statements  totally  devoid  of  truth. 
Speaking  of  Samuel  Fothergill,  an  eminent  and  truly  evangeli- 
cal minister  of  our  society,  who  died  about  fifty  years  ago,  he 
says:  *<  In  his  dying  exercises,  he  makes  no  mention  of  a  Sa- 
viour's righteousness."     Now  I  should  like  to  know  where 
Paul"  got  this  information  ?  was  he  present  at  his  death? 
The  account  we  have  of  the  state  of  his  mind  during  his  illness,  - 
is  very  brief — What  my  opponent  calls  his  <*  dying  exercises," 
are  a  few  expressions  made  to  some  of  his  relations,  who  call- 
ed to  see  him  on  their  way  to  Lond(m,  some  time  before  his 
death  !  But  suppose  he  never  spoke  of  <*  a  Saviour's  righteous- 
ness," what  then  ?  Does  that  prove  that  he  did  not  dept  nd  on 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  for  salvation  ?  By  no  means  !  many 
talk  much  about  it,  that  are  wholly  ignorant  of  the  righteous- 
ness in  question  !  But  Fotliergill  was  not  of  this  number.  His 
happy  redeemed  soul,  clothed  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  supported  by  divine  strength,  could  say  :  **  Though  painful 
my  nights  and  wearisome  my  days^  yet  I  am  preserved  in  patience 
and  resignation!  Death  has  no  terrors^  nor  will  the  grave  have  any 
victory — my  soul  triumphs  over  death,  hell  and  the  grave,^' — *»  / 
have  an  evidence  that  I  shall  gain  an  admittance  into  the  glorious 
church  triumphant,  far  above  the  heavens  /"  I'he  worst  wish  I 
entertain  for  my  opponent,  is,  that  he  may  make  as  happy  an 
end,  as  the  holy  man  he  has  so  shamefully  slandered  ! 

Again,  he  says:  In  five  long  prayers  affixed  to  his  Ser- 
mons, he  makes  no  petition  in  the  name  of  Emmanuel  /"  That 
my  readers  may,  in  future,  know  how  to  estimate  the  veracity 
of  my  opponent,  I  will  quote  two  passages  from  the  prayers  al- 
luded to !  1st.  <*  We  pray  thee,  in  the  name  and  Spirit  of  thy 
dear  Son,  to  direct  us  in  the  succeeding  steps  of  our  lives — to 
preserve  us  in  an  humble  dependence  and  holy  trust  in  thy 
power — and  may  we  be  continually  favoured  to  make  mention 
of  thy  name,  with  joy  and  gladness  of  heart"  2d.  "  Most  gra- 
cious and  adorable  Fountain  of  Mercy,  we  humbly  beseech  thee, 
in  the  name  and  Spirit  of  thy  dear  Son,  to  write  instructions 


437 


upon  all  our  imiids— give  us  to  ponder  the  excellency  ol'  tli  v 
loving  kindness,  and  humble  our  minds  in  a  sense  of  solemn 
gratitude  to  thee  !" 

Again  he  asserts,  that  Fothergill  has  but  one  sentence,  and 
that  of  a  very  general  kind,  of  confession  for  sin."  I  have  not 
room  to  refute  this  slander  by  quotations  from  these  prayers — 
suffice  it  to  say,  in  the  very  first  prayer,  there  are  four  particu- 
lar confessions  of  sin,  and  humble  acknowledgments  of  divine 
mercy  for  tiieir  pardon  ! ! ! 

Such,  reader,  is  the  character  of  our  opponent !  He  tells  us, 
he  speaks  **  in  the  fear  of  God."  But  if  we  judge  from  his  ac- 
tions, what  are  we  bound  to  believe  ?  Does  the  fear  of  God  lead 
men  into  slander  ?  Does  it  lead  them  to  calumniate  their  fel- 
low-Christians  ?  Dofs  it  lead  them  to  say  the  things  that  are 
not?  Fothergill,  like  Paul,  an  Apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,"  tra- 
veiled  thousands  of  miles  in  the  love  of  the  Gospel  on  his  own 
charges — he  freely  gave"  what  he  had  freely  received" — 
he  preached  "  ChriwSt,  the  wisdom  of  God,  and  the  power  of 
God,"  in  the  true  spirit  of  his  divine  Master — he  called  sin- 
ners to  repentance — he  invited  the  prodigal  to  the  Father's 
house — he  comforted  the  afflicted  and  disconsolate — he  strength- 
ened the  weak,  and  confirmed  the  strong — but  he  bore  a  steady 
testimony  against  a  corrupt  and  hireling  mercenary  priest- 
hood ! ! ! — And  <«  Paul"  is  offended  ! ! — and  because  he  is  of- 
fended, he  slanders  him  !  Alas  !  poor  human  nature  ! ! ! — «  Put 
forth  thine  hand  now,  and  touch  his  bone  and  his  skin,  and  he 
will  curse  thee  to  thy  face."  Only  let  interest  be  touched,  and 
even  the  dead  shall  not  rest  in  peace !  AMICUS. 

Friday,  J^ovember  8,  1822- 

LETTER  XXXIX. 

ON  THE  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

«  Beloved,  helieve  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they 
are  of  God.  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God ;  and  this  is  that  spirit  of  Antichrist, 
whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should  come,  and  even  now  is  it  alrea- 
dy in  the  world.-^    1  John  iv.  1.  3. 

That  "  Amicus"  is  an  admirable  painter  even  his  antagonist 
will  acknowledge  !  That  he  is  a  most  ingenious  sophister,  and 
excels  most  men  in  the  talent  of  making  the  worse  appear 
the  better  reason,"  no  reader  of  his  will  ever  question.  In  can- 


438 


caiure  he  is  uncommonly  apt ;  and  in  sly  uni^enerous  personal 
reflection  no  newspaper  scribbler  was  ever  more  impertinent 
and  unjust.  No  ignis  fatuus  was  ever  more  brilliant,  bewitch- 
ing,  or  dan]*erous  to  follow.  He  lures  to  bewilder,  and  daz- 
zles to  blind."  He  gilds  the  pill  with  which  he  would  poison 
community  ;  and  dresses  up  his  Quaker  idol  in  all  the  glitter 
and  finery  of  an  Eastern  deity  ! 

I  am  no  orator,  as  Brutus  is, — I  only  speak  right  on  ;" 
and  shall  proceed  without  formality  to  strip  his  idol  of  its  fan- 
tastic finery,  and  expose  it  to  the  public  in  its  native  drab. 

In  the  first  place,  he  says  some  most  beautiful  and  bewitching 
things  of  what  he  calls,  the  "  divinity  of  Christ,''^  but  which  after 
all,  amounts  to  nothing  more  nor  l»^ss  than  the  divinity  of  the 
Godhead  /  His  first  specimen  of  ingenuity,  lies  in  mistating  the 
question  about  the  divinity  of  Christ.  The  question  is  not 
whether  the  divine  nature  is  divine, — or  whether  God  is  God, 
as  he  would  have  us  believe!    The  divine  nature  which  was 

supereminently  manifested"  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  is  what  he 
admits  to  be  divine,  and  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  the  divinity 
of  Christ."    The  divinity  of  Christ  in  this  sense,  none  but  a 

maniac  or  bedlamite"  will  deny. 

But  the  question  between  Unitarians  and  Christians  is, 
whether  Jesus  of  JSTaxareth  was  a  divine  person? — >yhether  that 
body  and  that  blood  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  was  a 

part"  of  the  God-man  Mediator  ? — Whether  the  union  of  that 
human  nature  with  the  divine  nature  was  so  perfect  as  to  con- 
stitute but  one  person  ; — so  that  we  may  attribute  the  actions  of 
the  human  nature  to  a  divine  Person, — and  consider  the  obe- 
dience and  death,  and  all  the  actions  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  as  the  actions  and  sufferings  of  a  divine  Person  ? 

That  the  Father  is  God  nobody  denies  :  that  the  «  divine  na- 
ture which  dwelt  in  Christ''  was  divine,  it  would  be  silliness  to 
question  ; — but  whether  Jesus  of  Nazareth  combined  a  divine 
and  a  human  nature  in  himself,  so  that  he  was  both  God  and 
man  in  one  person,  is  the  true  question  of  which  Unitarians 
take  the  negative,  and  Trinitarians  the  affirmative. 

In  proof  that  the  human  nature  born  of  Mary  was  in  personal 
union  with  the  Divinity,  I  submit  the  following  arguments. 

1.  Because  otherwise  Jesus  of  JVazareth  is  no  more  divine 
than  Moses  or  Peter  or  Paul.  For  in  all  these  God  was  mani- 
fested, and  through  them  showed  forth  Almighty  works.  Mo- 
ses, it  is  true,  did  not  say  to  the  stormy  waves  "  Peace,  be 
still !" — but,  standing  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  he  said  to 
the  deep,  «'  Be  dry  !'*  and  to  the  waters,  separate  and  stand 
up  on  an  heap  I"  He  smote  the  rock  and  waters  gushed  out  ; 
he  denounced  sentence,  and  the  earth  opened  and  swallowed  up 


439 


Korali  and  his  company !  Ex.  xv.  xvii.  Num.  xvi.  These? 
were  divine  works  ;  yet  do  we  hold  to  the  divinity  of  Moses  ? 
jNo;  Why  not  r  Because  the  Deity  had  no  persona/ ?mio7i  with 
the  Jewish  Law-j^iver.  Moses  and  the  Deity  were  two  distinct 
beings.  Again  ;  the  Apostle  Peter,  turning  to  the  dead  body  of 
Dorcas,  said  ;  I'abiiha,  arise  and  she  opened  her  eyes,, 
and  when  she  saw  Peter  she  sat  up,"  Acts  ix.  40.  Why  not 
hold  to  the  divinity  of  Peter  ?  Surely  the  divine  nature  which 
was  manifested  in  him"  was  divine  !  And  why  not  hold  the 
divinity  of  fl//  t\w  Apostles?  For  our  Lord  speaking  of  them 
says  :  «  the  works  that  1  do  shall  ye  do  also,  and  greater  works 
than  these  shall  ye  do,  because  I  go  unto  the  Father."  John 
xiv.  12.  Now,  why  not  consider  all  the  Apostles  as  divine  ? 
Surely  the  divine  nature  which  <*  dwelt"  in  them,  and  was 
«  manifested"  in  them,  was  divine  /  You  may  say  every  thing  of 
Moses  which  you  have  ever  said  of  Christ.  And  the  truth  is, 
you  no  more  hold  the  diviiiity  of  Jesus  than  you  do  the  divinity  of 
his  Apostles,  except  that  you  grant  him  rather  a  greater  measure 
of  the  divine  Spirit!  But  the  whole  Christian  world  denies 
their  and  holds  to  his  divinity,  because  his  body  and  soul,  or  his 
whole  human  nature,  were  in  as  complete  union  with  the  Son  of 
God,  as  our  bodies  are  with  our  souls.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  the 
Almighty  Son  of  God,  are  the  names  of  one  and  the  same  person. 
There  was  a  personal,  or  (as  it  is  commonly  called)  an  hypostaii- 
cat  union  of  the  eternal  S(m  of  God  with  the  human  nature  born  of 
Mary.  So  that  it  maybe  as  truly  said,  i/m^  body  and  f/ia<  blood  were 
a  **  part  of  the  Deity," — were  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  that  your  body  is  a  part  of  you,  or  the  inferior  nature 
united  to  the  soul  of  Amicus,  is  a  part  of  Amicus.  And  all  the 
actions  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  were  as  much  the  actions  of  the 
Almighty  Son  of  God,  as  the  actions  of  your  body,  or  of  your 
inferior  nature,  are  yo%ir  actions. 

But  every  thing  like  a  personal  union  you  deny,  and  make 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  a  different  person  from  the  divinity  to  which 
he  was  united.  So  that  the  actions  of  the  one  are  not  the  ac- 
tions of  the  other.  Accordingly,  you  say  in  your  last  :  «  the 
man  Christ  Jesus  was  subject  to  poverty  and  pain  ;  as  a  man 
he  sweat  great  drops  of  blood  ;  as  a  man  he  died  and  was  buri- 
ed. It  is  impossible  all  this  could  be  said  of  the  Deity  /"  Now,  I 
argue,  that  all  this  may  be  said  of  the  Deity,  or  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth was  no  more  divine  than  Moses,  or  Peter  or  Paul.  But 
as  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  divine,  in  a  sense  which  no  other 
man  ever  was,  it  follows  there  was  in  him  a  personal  union  of 
humanity  and  divinity. 

2.  Without  such  a  personal  union,  the  obedience  of  Jesus  could 
have  had  no  more  mtrit  than  the  obedience  of  any  other  man 


440 


And  his  death  could  have  made  no  more  atonement  than  the 
death  of  any  other  man  J  J  If  he  did  not,  as  a  divine  PBitsoNy 
obey  the  law  and  sutfer  its  penalty,  then  we  have  no  other 
atonement  to  wash  away  our  guilt ;  no  other  righteousness  to  en- 
title us  to  life  ;  no  other  propitiation  for  our  sins,  no  other  foun- 
dation for  our  hope,  than  what  a  man,  a  mere  man  could  ac- 
complish ! !  ! 

Accordingly  you,  who  deny  the  personal  union,  speak  of  the 
actions  of  Jesus  as  the  actions  of  a  mere  mati ; — his  agonies 
and  bloody  sweat,  as  the  sufferings  of  a  mere  man ;  and  are 
consistent  with  yourselves  in  stigmatizing  the  doctrine  of  vi- 
carious atonement"  as  "heathenish  divinity!"  But  we^  who 
hold  a  personal  union  oi  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ, 
can  consistently  regard  his  obedience  and  death  as  the  works 
of  a  divine  person.  We  can  therefore  look  on  his  obedience  as  of 
infinite  merit,  and  his  death  as  an  infinite  atonement^ — and  can 
see  solid  ground  for  "  believing"  in  him,  and  trusting  in  iiim, 
for  ♦<  wisdom,  righteousness,  sanctification  and  redemption." 
1  Cor.  i.  30.  Whereas,  without  such  an  "  union,"  we  feel  our- 
selves liable  to  the  curse  resting  on  «^  the  man  that  trusteth  in 
man  !"  Jer.  xvii.  5. 

3.  Without  such  an  "union,"  we  cannot  understand  many 
passages  of  Scripture,  such  as  Heb.  v.  8.  Though  he  were  a 
Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered 

i.  e.  though  he  were  a  divine  person,  the  beloved  and  everlast- 
ing Son  of  God,  the  adored  of  angels,  above  all  law,  and 
exempt  from  all  suffering,  yet  "learned  he  obedience:'^  he 
^<  humbled  himself,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant^  and 
was  made  in  the  likeness  of  man,  and  became  obedient  unto 
deathy  even  the  death  of  the  cross !"  Phil.  ii.  7. 

Now,  there  is  no  meaning  in  this  passage,  unless  the  union 
between  the  divine  and  human  nature  was  so  intimate,  that  the 
actions  of  the  one  nature  might  be  attributed  to  the  other  na- 
ture, or  to  the  whole  person ; — no  force  in  the  passage,  unless 
the  works  of  the  human  nature  were  the  works  of  the  divine 

Son"  of  God. 

4.  This  personal  union  is  supposed,  in  John  i.  14  :  "  The 
Word  was  madefiesh,  and  dwelt  among  us."  W^hy  not  say  this 
of  Moses,  or  Peter,  or  Paul  ?  and  others  in  whom  the  Deity 
"  dwelt,"  and  was  "  manifested  ?"  Because  the  Word  had  no 
personal  union  with  them  ;  their  flesh  and  blood  were  not  the 
flesh  and  blood  of  the  Son  of  God.  Obj.  "  This  union  of  txvo 
natures  in  one  person  is  incomprehensible,^^  A.  Not  a  whit 
more  "  incomprehensible"  than  the  union  of  soul  and  body  in 
ourselves. 

5.  Upon  no  other  principle  could  it  have  been  said :  ^<  Ye 


441 


killed  the  Prince  op  Lite  !"  Acts  iii.  15.  If  the  human  na« 
turc  was  nnt  in  personal  union  with  the  divine,  tlien  they  did  not 
«  kill  the  Prince  of  Lite," — but  a  viere  man,  a  person  who  was 
on  a  par  with  Peter  or  Paul.  But  the  Bible  says  they  did  kill 
the  Prince  of  Life ;  therefore,  the  person  wlio  suffered,  was 
not  simply  a  man,  but  in  his  person  united  divinity  and  human- 
ity in  one. 

6.  Upon  no  other  principle  could  it  be  said  :  «  They  crucified 
the  Lord  of  (ilory  !"  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  If  there  was  not  an  union 
of  two  natures,  a  human  and  diA'ine,  in  one  person,  so  perfect 
that  the  sufferings'  of  the  inferior  nature  could  be  ascribed  to 
the  whole  person,  then  the  Apostle  told  a  lie,  and  the  Jews  and 
others  did  not    crucify  the  Lord  of  Glory,"  but  a  mere  man  ! 

Obj.  "  The  divine  nature,  as  you  acknowledge,  could  not  suf- 
fer."   True  ;  but  a  divine  person  may  and  did  suffer.    The  di- 
vine nature  did  not,  could  not  die;  but  a  divine  person,  as  I  have 
.  proved,  could  and  did  die. — Your  soul  will  never  die,  but  you 
(a  person  compounded  of  body  and  soul)  will  die.    Your  soul 

I  cannot  crumble  into  dust,  but  it  is  written  :  "  dust  thou  art,  and 
unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."    Your  soul,  or  higher  nature, 

!  neither  eats  nor  drinks,  nor  sees  nor  hears,  nor  bleeds  ;  but  all 
these  things  may  be  said  of  i/o?i.  So  Christ  could  not  suffer  or 
die  in  his  higher  or  divine  nature  ;  but  He  (as  a  compound  per- 
son, having  a  mortal  as  well  as  immortal  nature)  could  both 
suffer  and  die. 

7.  Upon  no  other  principle,  could  the  Saviour  be  said  to 

II  «  wash  us  in  his  blood."  Rev.  i.  8.  «  Unto  him  that  loved  us 
Ii  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made 

us  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  even  his  Father,  unto  him  be 
glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever  !"  Now  a  mere  man  could 
never  "  make  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God,"  nor  be  entitled  to 
glory  and  dominion  forever  and  ever  ;"  a  mere  man  could  ne- 
ver "  wash  us  in  his  blood."  The  blood  of  a  mere  man,  no  more 
than  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,"  could  ever  <*  take  away  sin.'* 
The  blood,  therefore,  by  which  we  are  washed,  or  by  which  our 
sins  are  expiated,  was  the  blood  of  a  divine  person.  But  a  di- 
vine person  cannot  shed  "  his  blood,"  or  die  for  us,  without 
assuming  human  nature  into  a  personal  union  with  the  divine. 

8.  Upon  no  other  principle  could  the  Lord  Jesus  say  :  I  am 
the  FIRST  and  tiie  last,  he  which  was  dead,  and  is  alive."  Rev. 
ii.  8.  Of  the  «  First  and  the  Last,"  (or  the  Deity,)  it  could 
never  have  been  said  :  <*  he  was  dead,^'  unless  he  had  assumed 
human  nature  into  personal  union,  so  as  to  make  himself  capa- 
hie  of  death.  It  is  impossible  the  immortal  God  should  ever  die 
without  taking  a  mortal  nature  into  such  an  union,  that  the  ac- 
tions of  that  inferior  nature  may  be  attributed  to  the  whole 

56 


442 

person.  But  as  it  is  expressly  asserted,  that  "the  First  and 
Last  was  dead,^^  it  follows,  He  who  is  the  First  and  the  Last  did 
take  humanity  into  personal  union  with  himself.  <«  He  took  not 
on  him  the  nature  of  angels,  hut  the  seed  of  Abraham, — was 
made  of  a  woman,'^  &c. 

9.  Upon  no  other  principle  could  it  be  said  **  Herein  perceive 
we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  (that  is,  God)  laid  down  his  life 
for  us.'*  1  John  iii.  16,  or  Acts  xx.  2S,  **  Feed  the  churcli  of 
God,  which  he  purchased  witli  his  own  blood.'^  Now,  unless 
God,  that  is,  the  Son  of  God,  took  human  nature  into  personal 
union  with  himself,  he  had  no  « life"  which  he  could  **  lay 
down,"  no  <♦  blood,"  which  it  was  possible  for  him  to  shed  for 
the  redemption  of  the  church  !  The  life  and  blood  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  were  not  "JJis"  life  and  blood  at  all,  unless  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  in  personal  union. 

There  is  no  other  way  of  getting  over  the  plain  doctrine  of 
these  passages,  but  that  very  convenient  one,  to  which  you  fre- 
quently resort, — expunging  or  altering  the  text! ! 

Obj.  «<To  say  that  God  laid  down  his  life  for  us,  is  false,  ab- 
surd and  blasphemous  !"  Of  this  I  have  nothing  more  to  say, 
than  that  it  is  flat  contradiction  of  the  Bible,  and  giving  the  lit 
direct  to  the  passages  I  have  quoted  !  ! 

10.  That  the  human  nature  born  of  the  virgin  was  the  human 
nature  of  a  divine  person,  is  evident  from  Isa.  vii.  I4  :  "A  vir- 
gin shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name 
Emmanuel,"  i.  e.  «  God  with  us.''  The  same  truth  is  evident 
from  Isa.  ix.  6  :  <*  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  son  is  given, 
and  his  name  shall  be  called  the  Mighty  God  "  Now,  un- 
less God  will  order  a  thing  to  be  called  by  a  wrong  name,  that 
body  which  was  born  of  the  virgin,  was  the  body  of  the  ^^Migh- 
ty  GodP^  When  this  body  yielded  its  life  upon  the  cross,  "God 
laid  down  his  life  for  us;  and  when  this  blood  was  shed,  God 
purchased  the  church  with  his  own  blood." 

I  have  made  the  above  remarks  to  warn  the  public  of  the  fol- 
lowing important  truths:  without  remembering  which,  this  con- 
troversy cannot  be  understood. 

1.  That  by  the  term  '*  Christ,'^  you  mean  something  very  differ- 
ent from  what  Christians  mean,  when  they  use  the  term.  The 
whole  Christian  world  uses  it  to  denote  a  person  who  exists  as 

God  and  man  in  two  distinct  natures  but  one  person  forever." 
Fou  use  the  term  to  signify  not  a  person — (for  says  "  Amicus," 
to  infer  that  he  is  a  divine  person  is  ridiculous  !") — but  a  naturtf 
an  influence  from  God.  In  other  words,  by  *»  Christ,"  you 
mean  nothing  more  nor  less  than  "internal  light ! !"  Internal 
light  is  what  you  mean  when  you  speak  of  "  Christ," — the  Sa- 
viour"— the    Reconciler" — the  «  Redeemer" — the  "  Judge  !" 


443 


This  it  is  tliat  atones—remits — and  redeems  and  saves.  Tliis, 
in  short,  is  your  **  God,"  your  Bible,  your  baptism,  your 
Lord's  supper,  your  all.  And  this  internal  light  I  have  al- 
ready proved  to  be  a  Jack  o'  lanterii !  ^ 

2.  Your  *♦  divinity  of  Christ,'^  accordingly,  is  a  totally  differ- 
ent  thing  from  the  divinity  which  all  Christians  hold.  They 
mean  the  divinity  of  that  mysterious  person,  whom  I  have  de- 
scribed as  God  and  man  in  personal  union.  You  mean  the 
divinity  of  that  something,  call  it  **  divine  life,  light,  power,  or 
grace,"  which  dwells  in  every  man — which  dwelt  in  Peter 
and  Paul  in  a  high  degree,  and  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "super- 
eminently.'' You  will  be  understood  hereafter,  therefore,  when 
you  speak  of  the  *<  div  inity  of  Christ,"  as  simply  meaning  the 

divinity  of  internal  light !  !" 

And  now,  ye  deluded  followers  of  a  misguiding  «  spirit,"  we 
have  «  tried  your  spirit"  by  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  since  you 
«*  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the  fesh^^ — or  become  a 
man  by  taking  human  nature  into  personal  union, — we  set  you 
down  as  "  not  of  God,"  but  of  that  <*  anti-christ  which  was  to 
come"  into  the  world,  John  iv.  3.  No  long«^r,  therefore,  de- 
ceive the  public  by  pretending  to  hold  the  divinity  of  Christ, — 
nor  claim  the  name  of"  Christian,"  while  you  reduce  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  to  a  level  with  Moses ;  and  make  the  merits  of  his 
life  and  death,  the  merits  of  a  mere  man!  !  You  hold,  indeed^ 
that  the  divine  nature  is  divine,  that  God  is  God, — and  you 
perhaps  admire  your  wisdom  ! — but  Christians  hold  as  their 
foundation  a  doctrine  which  you  reject  and  ridicule, — even  that 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  divine  person — that  he  who  was  born 
of  the  virgin  was  Emmanuel  ; — that  he  who  was  a  man  of  sor- 
rows— who  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised 
for  our  iniquities — who  was  made  a  curse  for  us  that  the  curse 
might  be  removed  from  us,  was  Jehovah  our  righteousness!  ! 

Cease  therefore  vour  *»  feigned  words,"  and  acknowledge 
that  in  your  views  of  **  C  hrist,"  and  of  the  •»  divinity  of  Christ,'* 
you  differ  from  the  whole  Christian  world*  PAUL. 

Sixth-day y  llth  mo.  15,  1822, 

LETTER  XXXVllI. 

«  Mt  everyone  that  saith  unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  hit  he  that  doth  the  will  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,^^  Matt.  vii.  21. 

The  most  striking  feature  in  my  opponent's  last  production, 
is  its  asperity.'    1  cannot  even  return  his  compliment,  by  say- 


ing  he  is  an  <^  ingenious  sophister,"  or  good  at  "  caricature  V 
his  paintings  are  like  nothing  in  the  natural  or  spiritual  worlds! 
They  are  the  distorted  images  of  his  own  dark  imagination. 
That  he  is  «  no  orator,'  among  men  of  refined  and  cultivated 
jnindsy  we  can  readily  belftve  ;  though  it  is  probable  he  might 
pass  for  one  in  »<  the  seat  of  the  scorner,"  and  where  possibly 
he  might  make  the  worse  appear  the  better  reason."  With 
a  discerning  public  this  is  now  impracticable  His  two  last 
Letters  have  fixed  the  character  of  his  doctrine,  and  his  own 
character  as  its  defender. 

That  the  character  of  his  doctrine  is  blasphemous,  I  fully  de- 
monstrated in  my  last. — That  it  is  a  jumble  of  irrational  and 
contradictory  propositions,  was  proved  from  Paul's"  own 
statements.  From  the  dilemma  in  which  he  was  involved,  by 
three  several  conclusions,  he  has  not  extricated  himself ;  on 
the  contrary,  like  a  <*  bull  in  a  net,"  his  difticulties  increase 
with  every  struggle.    In  his  preceding  Letter,  he  told  us  that 

JEHOVAH,  THE  AUTHOR  OF  LIFE,  THE  CREA- 
TOR OF  THE  WORLD,  WAS  KILLED  ;"  and  in  his  last 
he  tells  us,  that  the  "  body  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary, 
teas  THE  BODY  OF  THE  MIGHTY  GOD  ! ! !"  So  then, 
we  are  to  understand,  that  HE  whom  "  the  heaven  of  heavens 
cannot  contain,"  1  Kings  viii.  27, — HE  who  sitteth  upon  the 
circle  of  the  earth,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof  are  as  grass- 
lioppers,"  Isa.  xl.  22, — He,  before  whom  all  nations  are  as 
nothing,  and  counted  to  HIM  less  than  nothing  and  vanity," 
ver.  17,— He  who  is  infinite — whose  centre  is  every  w  here, 
hut  whose  circumference  is  not  to  be  found,*'  was  for  nine 
months  circumscribed  within  the  narrow  limits  of  the  womb  ! ! ! 
Now,  I  think,  that  any  man  who  can  believe  such  a  sentiment, 
must  either  be  deplorably  priest-ridden,  or  far  gone  in  his  do- 
tage ! ! !  When  «<  Paul"  shall  make  any  converts  to  this  doc* 
trine,  he  may  truly  call  them  "  the  deluded  followers  of  a 
misguiding  spirit !" 

Now  I  can  see  no  good  reason,  if  my  opponent  seriously  be- 
lieves the  doctrine  he  offers  for  our  acceptance,  why  he  might 
not  turn  Roman  Catholic  at  once — adopt  "our  Lady's  Psal- 
ter"— say  his  Ave  Maria,"  and  begin  his  prayers  with — Oh 
Mary  Mother  of  God/  The  most  seraphical  Doctor  Bona- 
venture,  has  certainly  left  <«  Paul"  but  a  little  way  behind 
him  in  absurdity  ;  and  from  his  late  efforts,  I  think  it  probable, 
my  opponent  will  soon  overtake  him  ! 

The  natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  1  Cor.  ii.  14. 
From  the  very  carnal  views  of  my  opponent,  and  from  the  con- 


4*45 

(cinptuous  manner  in  which  he  speaks  of  divine  things,  it  is 
evident,  that  he  has  rejected  thi  only  means  by  which  we  ever 
can  indubitably  understand  the  sacred  text.  As  «*h()ly  men  of 
old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit" — so  it  is 
equally  true,  that  no  man  can  ever  read  the  Scriptures  in  their 
original  sense,  unless  his  mind  be  illuminated  by  the  same  di- 
vine Spirit !  And  as  there  is  but  one  divine  Spirit,  so  the 
Apostle  plainly  describes  its  nature.  "  God  is  light,"  1  John 
i.  5.  And  **  God,  who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  dark- 
ness, hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  us  the  light  of  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  God,"  2  Cor.  iv.  6. — <*  and  he  is  the  true  light 
that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  John  1, 
But  there  is  something  so  shocking  to  my  opponent  in  the  idea 
of  light,  that  it  puts  him  quite  out  of  humour.  Light the  very 
dawn  of  which,  in  the  natural  world,  fills  the  woodlands  with 
music,  and  all  animated  nature  with  joy  and  gladness  ! — Light! 
divine  light — in  whicli  all  the  children  of  God  rejoice  together  ! 
in  which  they  that  walk,"  have  "  fellowship  one  with  an- 
other"— and  enjoy  all  the  blessings  of  the  new  creation."  Light  I 
a  single  ray  of  which  fills  the  Christian  heart  with  comfort, 
throws  my  benighted  opponent  into  a  paroxysm  of  anger,  from 
which  he  does  not  seem  to  get  relief,  until  he  has  profaned  this 
heavenly  gift  with  the  most  approbrious  names  !  Thus  he  calls 
<*  GOD,  who  commands  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,"  a 
^iJacko'*  lantern," — CHRIST,  the  true  iijr/iUhat  lighteth  every 
man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  he  tells  us,  is  «  an  ignis  fatu- 
us," — He  who  "  was  set  to  be  a  light  of  the  gentiles,  and  for 
God'  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,"  Acts  xiii.  47,  he  calls  : 
«  a  misguiding  Spirit !  1  /" 

Now  how  are  we  to  account  for  this?— -There  must  be  some- 
thing very  much  out  of  order  in  this  lover  of  darkness,  or  he 
would  not  expose  himself  so  disreputably  to  the  world  !  It  would 
seem  reasonable  to  conclude,  that  he  must  be  in  the  habitual 
violation  of  some  divine  command  !  for  he  that  doeth  evil  hat- 
eth  the  light,  Jieither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds  should  be 
reproved  ;  but  he  that  doth  truth,  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  deeds 
may  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  wrought  in  God;"  John  iii. 
20,  21.  If  "  Paul"  would  examine  closely,  perhaps  he  might 
discover,  that  at  least  two  or  three  times  a  week,  he  violates  an 
express  injunction  of  our  Lord!  Matt.  x.  8.  Well  did  Christ 
say  to  such  :  «  ye  blind  guides,  which  strain  at  a  gnat  and  swal- 
low a  camel."  Matt,  xxiii.  24. 

"Paul"  may  call  this  «<  a  sly  ungenerous  personal  reflec- 
tion :" — He  has  several  times  accused  me  of  "  personality" — 
and  once  the  editor  joined  in  the  accusation  !  But  I  can  assure 
them,  they  are  both  mistaken.  Since  the  beginning  of  this  con- 


446 


troversy  I  liave  never  made  a  single  personal  allusion  to  my  op- 
ponent.— 1  cliallenge  them  both  to  shew  the  contrary — my  pa- 
pers are  all  before  them.  I  know  nothing  of  <»  Paul"  but  what 
he  has  publicly  told  of  himself ! — that  he  is  one  of  those  **  priests" 
deseribed  by  the  prophet :  «  who  teach  for  hire'* — and  divine 
for  money,"  Mie.  iii.  11.  But  whether  he  lives  in  new  Jersey, 
Pennsylvania,  or  Delaware,  I  do  not  know  !  nor  do  1  care  !  I 
have  nothing  to  do  with  his  person^  though,  as  an  advocate  for 
the  truth  of  the  Gospel,  I  have  to  do  with  his  practices  ; — and 
these,  while  I  can  have  the  liberty  of  speech,  or  of  the  pen,  I 
shall  continue  to  expose,  as  aw^ic/iris flaw ;  adverse  to  the  ex- 
press commands  of  Christ;  and  dangerous,  as  being  the  source 
of  innumerable  evils  in  the  Church  and  state ! !  To  call  this  ♦*  a 
sly  or  personal  reflection,"  is  a  perversion  of  language  !  Ami- 
cus, conscious  of  the  strength  of  his  position,  and  the  truth  of 
his  statements,  has  candidly  and  boldly  exposed  his  views — too 
openly  to  comport  with  the  comfort  of  his  opponent,  as  is  evident 
from  the  language  and  temper  of  his  Letters ! 

Let  us  now  recur  to  «  Paul's"  doctrine,  as  stated  in  his  last, 
and  see  how  it  will  accord  with  other  parts  of  his  scheme.  Af- 
ter quoting  Isa.  ix.  6,  he  tells  us  :  "  that  body  which  was  born  of 
the  Virgin,  was  the  body  of  the  mighty  God."  The  text,  to 
suit  his  purpose,  be  however  quoted  but  partially  ;  that  we  may 
have  a  full  view  of  the  subject,  I  will  copy  it  from  the  Bible  ; 
*^  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given,  and  the  govern- 
ment shall  be  upon  his  shoulders,  and  his  name  shallbe  called-^ 
WONDERFUL,  COUNSELLOR,  THE  MIGHTY  GOD, 
THE  EVERLAS1ING  FATHER,  THE  PRINCE  OF 
PEACE."  Now  if  the  Son  which  was  begotten  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary — was  the  mighty  God,  the 
everlasting  Father,  then  were  this  «*  Son"  and  "  the  everlasting 
Father,"  the  offspring  the  Holy  Ghost ! ! !  and  then  saint  Atha- 
nasiaus  was  mistaken,  for  he  tells  us  :  <*  the  Son  is  of  the 
Father  alone,"  and  "  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son,  neither  made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten,  but  proceeding^ 
But  ^<Paul"  tells  us,  that  both  the  Father  and  the  Son,  were 
begotten  of  the  Holy  Ghost ! ! !  Taking  the  doctrine  of  my  op- 
ponent and  saint  Athanasius  together,  it  will  stand  thus — The 
Father  begot  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  and  afterwards,  to  wit,  four  thousand  years 
from  the  Creation,  the  Holy  Ghost  begat  the  Father  and  the 
Son ! ! !    This  may  truly  be  called  "  a  mystery  !" 

]  presume  this  kind  of  doctrine  will  suit  none  but  Trinita- 
rians, I  will  therefore  review  the  texts  from  Isaiah,  and  see  if 
they  do  not  convey  to  those  who  prefer  reason  to  absurdity,  and 
truth  to  error,  a  very  different  meaning ! — «  Behold  a  virgin 


447 


shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Emma 
nuel."  Isaiah  vii.  14.  It  is  very  observable,  that  the  Prophet 
does  not  say — **  and  shall  call  him  Emmanuel'' — but,  shall  call 
«  his  name  Emmanuel."  So  in  the  other  text :  »<  and  his  name 
shall  be  called  the  mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  &c." — 
it  does  not  say,  he  shall  be  called  the  mighty  God,  &c. — This 
circumstance  rightly  considered,  will  I  think,  lead  us  safely 
out  ot  the  mystery  ! — As  I  observed  in  a  former  essay,  <*  the 
name"  signifies  the  power.  By  a  metonomy,  it  is  used  to  shew 
the  quality,  the  efficiency  of  an  agent!    As  <*  Cruden"  says: 

the  name  of  God  signifies  his  wisdom,  power  and  goodness,'* — 
Thus,  when  the  good  king  Asa  prayed  :  "  Help  us  O  Lord  our 
God,  for  we  rest  on  thee,  and  in  thy  name  we  go  against  this 
multitude — let  not  man  prevail  against  thee  ?  2  Chron.  xiv.  11. 
When  the  Psalmist  said  :  "  They  that  know  thy  name  will  put 
their  trust  in  thee.'''  Ps.  ix.  lo.  When  the  prophet  said  :  **  The 
name  of  the  Lord  is  a  strong  tower,  the  righteous  runneth  into 
it  and  is  safe."  Prov.  xviii.  10.  When  the  seventy  returned 
with  joy  saying,  Lord,  even  the  Devils  are  subject  unto  us 
through  thy  name,''  Luke  x.  17.  and  in  a  hundred  other  places, 
where  the  word  name"  occurs,  it  is  evident,  that  reference 
is  made  to  divine  power,  and  not  to  mere  sounds  ! 

We  will  now  recur  to  the  fulfilment  of  Uvise  momentous  pro- 
phecies.— It  will  throw  a  clear  and  convincing  light  on  this  po- 
sition. And  first.  Before  the  birth  of  our  Lord,  an  angel  ap- 
peared unto  Joseph,  and  speaking  of  this  event,  said  of  Mary — 
«  she  shall  bring  forth  a  Son,  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name 
JESUS."  Here  we  find  divine  Wisdom  uses  the  same  phraseo- 
logy^ii  thou  shalt  call  his  name  JESUS  :"  which  signifies  "  A 
Saviour" — and  gives  us  the  reason,  for  he  shall  save  his  peo- 
ple/rom  their  sins.'*  Matt.  i.  :il.  See  also  Luke  i.  31.  Here 
we  see  the  name  clearly  signifies  the  power,  which  the  Apostle 
calls,  "  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  GodJ*'  Rom. 
i.  24.  Second  ;  How  exactly  does  this  idea  harmonize  with  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  Gospel.  They  shall  call  his  7iame  Emma- 
nuel, which  is,  being  interpreted,  God  with  us."  Matt.  i.  23 — 
Our  Lord  tells  us,  God  is  a  Spirit."  John  iv.  24.  He  does 
not  say  he  is  compounded  of  flesh  and  spirit !  And  the  Apostle 
declares,  that  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself."  2  Cor.  v.  19.  <«  For  in  him  dwelt  all  the  fulness  of 
of  the  Godhead."  Col.  ii.  9.  Christ  was  then,  "  God  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh.''    1  Tim.  iii.  16.  and  so  he  is  to  this  day  ! 

When  we  consider  these  texts,  in  connection  with  a  number 
of  our  Lord's  declarations  respecting  himself,  it  appears  to  me 
impossible  to  avoid  the  force  of  the  conclusion,  that  "  God  in 
Christ  is  the  true  and  exclusive  divinity  of  Christ.*' — My  op^ 


4^S 

pottent  tells  us  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  divine  person  I  Our 
Lord  tells  us  he  was  "  a  man," — "  But  now,"  said  he  to  the 
the  Jews,  "  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the 
truth,  which  I  have  heard  of  God,'^  John  viii.  4^0.  Peter  stiles 
him  <*  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  among  you, 
by  miracles,  and  wonders,  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  him," 
Acts.  ii.  22,  My  opponent  tells  us,  »•  that  the  body  which  was 
born  of  the  virgin,  was  the  body  of  the  mighty  God." — The  Apos- 
tle tells  us,  "  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels^  but  he  took 
on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  in  all  things^  was  made  like 
unto  his  brethren."  Heb.  ii.  16, 17.  So  that  it  clearly  appears, 
that  Paul  the  Apostle,  and  *<  Paul"  the  Trinitarian,  were  of  dif- 
ferent opinions  !  and  as  both  cannot  be  true,  I  much  prefer  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostle  as  being  more  consistent  with  Scripture, 
reason,  and  common  sense  ! 

*«  Paul"  has  already  admitted  that  the  divine  nature  is  in- 
capable of  suffering! !"  and  yet  he  insists,  that  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth was  a  divine  person-  Now  if  the  divine  nature  be  "  inca- 
pable of  suffering,"  either  Jesus  endured  no  suffering,  or  this 

divine  person"  was  not  of  a  divine  nature. 

Thus,  when  we  view  his  scheme  in  any  point  of  light  what- 
ever, it  presents  us  with  nothing  but  contradictions  and  absur- 
dities ! ! !  There  is  not  any  thing  the  least  «  bewitching"  in  it. 
It  "bewilders"  without  "alluring!" — If  it  "poison"  people, 
it  will  not  be  because  it  is  *<  gilded,"  but  because  they  take  it 
with  every  property  that  can  disgust  a  sensible  mind,  exposed 
to  view  ! !  I  His  Calvinistic  idols,  are  devoid  of  every  attraction, 
they  neither  charm  the  understanding  nor  delight  the  fancy  !  ! ! 

The  vulgar  doctrine  of  "  the  Trinity,"  in  connection  with 
that  of  the  "  atonement,"  presents  to  view  a  specimen  of  those 
absurdities  engendered  by  Anti  christ,  in  the  night  of  the  apos- 
tacy,  when  "darkness  covered  the  earth,  and  gross  darkness 
the  people." — It  supposes  the  Deity  divided  into  three  "  dis- 
tinct and  separate"  parts  or  persons.  One  of  those  persons 
wrathful  and  implacable,  another  merciful  and  gracious — that 
one,  by  a  kind  of  transubstantiation,  was  made  mortal,  and  was 
Jdlled  by  the  creatures  he  had  made  ! — It  supposes  God  was 
slain,  to  make  satisfaction  to  himself — that  the  immortal  Jelun  all 
was  put  to  death  by  mortal  men,  to  appease  his  own  wrath  I !  I 
Or  that  one  part  of  the  Deity  was  killed,  to  appease  the  other 
part,  and  put  him  into  a  capacity  to  be  merciful.  It  supposes 
our  Heavenly  Father  is  more  unmerciful  than  the  wickedest 
man  on  earth  ! !  '—that  he  cannot  forgive  sl  sinner  at  all,  but  that 
his  debt  must  be  paid  to  the  uttermost  farthing! ! ! — It  teaches 
us,  that  we  are  not  in  the  least  indebted  to  him  for  our  redemp- 
tion, since  he  would  not  let  us  escape,  until  another  had  paid 


449 


his  demand  in  full — an(l  it  teaches  us,  that  since  the  debt  of  sin 
is  already  paid,  we  may  live  just  as  we  please,  for  justice  can- 
not demand  to  be  paid  txvice  for  the  same  debt — and  therefore 
God  cannot  punish  us  for  our  sins  !  ! ! 

These,  gentle  reader,  are  but  a  small  part  of  the  irrational 
consequences  of  my  opponent's  scheme,  vvliich,  he  would  make 
us  believe,  contains  the  only  Christian  views  of  Scripture  truth! 
Let  us  now  see  if  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  did  not  preach  a 
different  dfictrine  : — In  order  to  illustrate  my  views,  1  will  first 
show  what  it  is  that  separates  God  and  the  soul  of  man,  and 
make  an  *<  atonement''  necessary. — 2d,  Whence  it  arises. — 3d, 
What  are  its  effects — and  4lh,  How  it  may  be  removed. 
I      1st.  That  which  separates  God  and  tlie  soul,  is  sin — the  dead- 
l  liest  foe  toliuman  happiness.    God  is  an  ever  blessed  and  over- 
I   flowing  fountain  of  divine  love  and  mercy — always  desiring  to 
pour  out  the  richest  blessings  on  his  creatures.    He  delighteth 
to  do  us  good,  and  requires  nothing  on  our  part  but  a  preparation 
or  qualification  to  receive  it!  But  sin  stands  as  a  partition 
wall"  between  God  and  us ;  and  while  it  stands,  is  an  effectual 
I  barrier  between  us  and  the  blessings  that  await  our  acceptance. 
'      2d.  All  sin  originates  in  a  contrariety  of  our  will  to  the  divine 
will.    If  man  were  always  to  maintain  a  subjection  of  his  own 
will  to  the  will  of  his  Creator,  he  could  never  commit  a  sin ! 
God  manifests  his  will  to  man  by  his  own  Holy  Spirit ;  some- 
times through  the  medium  of  the  Holy  Scriptures — sometimes 
by  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel — sometimes  by  what  is  called  con- 
jj  science,  but  principally  by  that  wiiich  the  inspired  writers  call. 
The  law  wi'itten  in  the  heart,"  Rom.  ii.  15.  "  The  law  of  the 
spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,"  Rom.  viii.  2.  "  The  law  of  faith," 
,  Rom.  ii.  27.     A  measure  or  manifestation  of  the  spirit,"  which 
E     is  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal."  Rom.  xii.  7.  **  The 
grace  of  G  id  that  bringeth  salvation,  and  which  hath  appear- 
ed unto  ail  men  !  !"  Tit.  ii.  11,  &c.  &c.  &c. 

3d.  The  effect  of  sin  is  an  alienation  of  the  soul  from  the 
source  of  happiness — from  the  divine  life.  *^  For  the  Vvages  of 
is  death,"  Rom.  vi.  23.  When  any  one  wilfully  acts  con- 
trary to  the  divine  law — he  sins;  he  stands  in  opposition  to 
God,  and  so  standing,  he  is  separated  from  God,  and  is  under 
the  curse  of  the  law  !  He  is  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins," 
and  has  no  more  power  to  restore  himself  to  a  life  with  God, 
and  communion  with  his  Maker,  than  a  dead  man  has  power  to 
raise  himself  to  animal  life,  and  return  to  a  communion  with 
his  fellow-creatures! — Thus  stood  Adam,  when  he  ate  the  for- 
bidden fruit ;  and  thus  stands  every  son  of  Adam,  when  he  act8 
contrary  to  the  known  will  of  God  ' 
57 


Here  poor  man  needs  an  ATONEMENT  indeed!  Now  for 
a  Saviour,  or  he  perishes  forever!  This  brings  us  to  consider — 

4th.  How  his  sin  marj  be  removed — how  the  dead  may  be  re- 
stored to  life!  Here  we  liave  plain  Seripture  testimony  from 
the  highest  authority,  which  points  out  the  only  effectual  Re-  ' 
deemeVf  and  what  is  requisite  on  our  part,  in  order  to  know  «  an 
effectual  redemption,  a  thorougli  change;" — <«  not  an  imputation 
of  righteousness"  whilst  we  are  actually  in  sin — <*  but  a  real 
substantial  righteousness  in  the  heart  and  life,"  which  only  was 
and  is  **THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST."— Jesus 
saith  unto  her,  I  am  tlie  resurrection  and  the  life,  he  that  be- 
lievetli  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live ;  and  who- 
soever liveth  and  believeth  in  vie,  shall  never  die."  John  xi.  25, 
26.  In  this  declaration  of  our  blessed  Lord,  it  is  evident,  that  he 
was  speaking  of  the  death  of  sin  and  resurrection  to  a  holy  life  ; 
and  of  no  other  death  or  resurrection  whatever,  as  some  have  ab- 
surdly imat^ined  !  In  a  carnal  point  of  vieiL\  the  declaration  is 
not  true  !  A  dead  man  is  not  a  subject  for  the  exercise  of  faith — 
and  a  living  man,  though  the  most  genuine  believer  on  earth, 
shall  as  surely  die  as  the  greatest  sinner! — \Vhen,  therefore, 
our  Lord  said  :  *«  I  am  tlie  resurrection  and  the  life,*'  he  in 
fact  published  himself  to  the  world,  as  the  only  means  of  salva- 
tion— **  for  there  is  no  other  name  under  heaven,  given  among 
men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved,"  but  the  name,  which  is  the 
power  of  Christ,  There  is  no  other  power  that  can  raise  the 
*<  dead  in  trespasses  and  sin,"  and  restore  us  unto  life  with 
God ! 

How  beautifully  does  the  Apostle  elucidate  this  view  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  chap.  ii.  1,  2,  4,  5,  6,  8  :  <*  And  you 
hath  he  quickened,  [raised  unto  life]  who  were  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins  ;  wherein  in  time  past  ye  walked,  according 
to  this  world:" — but  God,  w/io  is  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love 
wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath 
quickened  us  [made  us  to  live]  together  with  Christ,  and  hath 
raised  us  up  [hath  been  our  **  resurrection'']  and  made  us  to  sit 
together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus." — <«  For  by  grace 
are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  vourselves,  it  is  the 
gift  of  God  ! !" 

No  two  passages  could  possibly  run  more  parallel,  than  the 
declaration  of  our  Lord,  John  xi.  25,  26,  and  this  passage  of 
the  Apostle.  Christ  declares:  He  that  believeth  in  me,  though 
he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live,"    The  Apostle  declares  :  that 

they  who  had  been  dead  in  sins,  God  had  quickened  and  raised 
unto  life  !  And  this  gives  a  true,  and  the  only  true  view  of  the 
Scripture  doctrine  of  atonement!  Reconciliation  and  atonement 
are  synonymous  terms  under  the  Gospel ;  they  both  mean  the 


451 


same  thing — a  union  of  things  that  had  been  separated/ — Sin 
only  can  separate  GocI  and  the  soul,  Isaiah  lix.  2.  And  sin 
must  be  removed,  before  God  can  be  reconciled  to  man!  Tlie 
rebellious  will  of  man  must  be  brought  into  subjection  to  the 
will  of  God,  before  the  Gospel  atonement  can  possibly  be  made  ! 
before  we  can  be  brought  into  union  and  communion  with  our 
Creator ! 

The  word  **  atonement"  occurs  but  once  in  our  translation  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  original  word,  in  other  places,  is 
rendered  **  reconciliation  our  English  word  atonement," 
conveys  precisely  this  idea.  It  appears  to  be  compounded  of 
AT  and  ONE,  and  ME  NT,  signifying  that  parties  wiio  have 
differed,  have  been  brought  together  into  a  ONENESS. — 

We  also  j(»y  in  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
we  have  now  received  the  At — one — ment,"  Rom.  v.  11.  For, 
saith  the  Apostle  :  **  He  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one;^' 
that  is,  reconciled  us  to  God,"  and  hath  <*  broken  down  the  mid- 
dh  wall  of  partition  between  us."  Eph,  ii.  14. 

Any  other  atonement  than  this,  is  a  sin-pleasing  doctrine  ! — 
it  is  false  and  dangerous  ! — it  sets  people  at  ease  in  their  sins  / — 
It  makes  them  satisfied  in  an  unsanctified  and  corrupt  state! 
It  supposes  a  man  may  be  imputatively  righteous,  while  he  is 
actually  wicked  ! — imputatively  holy,  while  actually  in  sin  ! — im- 
putatively reconciled,  w^hile  the  **  middle  wall  of  partition"  be- 
tween his  polluted  soul  and  divine  Purity,  has  not  been  *<  bro- 
ken down  ! ! !" — It  supposes  the  cry  of  **  Lord,  Lord,"  will  save 
him,  while  he  is  doing  the  works  of  the  Devil  !  and  finally,  it 
supposes  that  righteousness  may  tiave  fellowship  with  unrighte- 
ousness ! — that  light  may  have  communion  with  darkness  ! — 
that  Christ  may  have  concord  with  Belial !  and  he  that  believ- 
eth,  may  have  part  with  an  infidel ! !  !  2  Cor.  vi.  14,  15. 

Fellow-Christians,  "  be  not  deceived — God  is  not  mocked. 
Such  as  we  sow,  such  shall  we  reap.  If  we  sow  to  the  flesh, 
of  the  flesh  we  must  reap  corruption — if  we  sow  to  the  Spirit, 
we  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  everlasting."  My  opponent  ridi- 
cules this  doctrine  !  but  regard  him  not !  He  contradicts  the 
plain  words  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles — and  the  experience  of 
thousands,  who  have  dug  deep"  (through  the  vile  rubbish  of 
human  tradition,  accumulated  by  priestcraft,  to  cover  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles)  and  have  laid  their  foun- 
dation on  the  Rock  of  Ages,  CHRIST  THE  TRUE  CORNER 
STONE  ;  which,  said  the  Apostle,  ♦*  was  set  at  nought  of  you 
builders,  but  which  is  become  the  head  of  the  corner."  Acts 
iv.  11.  AMICUS. 


Fnday,  jVovember  22, 1822- 

LETTER  XL. 


THE  TRINITY,  DIVINITY,  AND  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 

Every  day  increases  my  conviction,  that  your  foundation  is 
the  sand  — that  you  have  nothing  of  Christianity  but  the 
name  !  It  is  a  (avourite  rule  of  yours,  as  it  ous;ht  to  be  of  all, 
"  Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits."  By  this  rule  I  judge  of 
your  Society.  If  there  by  any  religion  in  your  members,  we 
may  expect  to  find  it  in  your  preachers  and  public  leaders.  We 
may  expect  to  hear  something  of  it  in  their  dying  language  and 
last  exercises  in  this  world.  I'he  last  words  of  Fothergill  were 
noticed  in  a  former  number.  He  says  not  half  so  much  of  Christ, 
as  a  Mussulman  would  have  said  about  his  prophet! — Yet  I 
am  much  mistaken  if  his  case  is  singular.  In  **  Poulson's  Ad- 
vertis<^  r,"  of  Nov.  6,  is  a  long  obituary  publicati(m,  which  is  a 
••disgrace  to  the  Society  that  published  it! — yet  I  believe  it  a 
fair  specimen  of  your  Society.  The  writer,  from  his  being  the 
chosen  companion  of  two  female  **  Public  Friends,"  appears  to 
be  like  the  individual  whose  obituary  he  writes:  "an  eminent 
member  of  the  Society  of  Friends, — held  deservedly  in  high 
estimation  for  his  practical  piety  and  active  virtue."  The  ac- 
count is  introduced,  with  **  blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the 
Lord,  &c.*'  After  which  we  have  a  journal  of  his  sickness 
(without  a  single  spii'itual  remark  from  the  patient !)  for  eight 
days  or  more.  He  then  expressed  a  strong  anxiety  to  see  the 
writer  of  his  eulogy,  to  whom  he  had  something  to  communicate. 
He  came.  With  much  solemnitij  he  commits  to  him  his  sur- 
veyor's notes! — assures  him  lie  has  nothing  further  to  say  on 
public  business ;  and  as  to  private  business  his  mind  was  en- 
tirely easy." — (Why,  gentle  reader?)  I  have  endeavoured  to 
perform  all  my  duties*  both  public  and  private,  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge; — my  mind  is  at  ease,  and  I  fed  perfectly  satisfied 
(Was  not  Socrates  at  ease  and  perfectly  satisfied?")  After 
this  he  says  :  "  J  wish  my  friends  to  know,  that  I  feel  towards 
them  all,  as  Addison  felt  towards  his  young  friend.  If  I  die, 
I  sIi'hII  exchange  this  world  for  a  better  !"  (Did  not  Franklin, 
a  professed  deist,  express  a  similar  hope !)  These  were  his 
last  expressions,  and  this  is  t1ie  sum  total  of  those  **  Christian" 
feelings,  which  the  eulogist  extols  so  highly  ! ! !  Yet  in  view 
of  this  he  exclaims:  Mark  the  perfect  man,  and  behold  the 
upright !"  and  takes  it  for  granted  he  has  entered  into  the 
joy  of  his  Lord  !"  Not  one  word  of  Christ! — not  a  syllable  of 
repentance  for  sin  ; — of  faith  in  a  Saviour  ;  or  f>f  a  change  of 
heart ! — not  a  single  intimation  that  he  felt  himself  a  .smwcr,  or 


453 


knew  that  Jesus  Christ  had  come  into  the  world  ! !  Like  Fo- 
thei-gill,  he  has  not  a  single  Christian  expression — not  a  pro* 
fession  of*  one  doctrine  peculiar  to  the  Gospel — not  a  word  of 
sin — not  a  word  of  mercy  / — He  only  proclaims  his  rectitude  and 
resignation — enters  heaven  in  all  the  majesty  of  merit,  and 
takes  eternal  glory  as  it  were  by  right ! !!  These  things,  with 
experimental  Christians,  need  no  comment.  They  speak  vo- 
lumes.   Your  <«  Christianity"  is  a  hypocrite  ! 

'I'lie  above  is  a  practical  illustration  of  that  «  substantial 
righteousness  of  heart  and  life, ''on  which  you  rely  as  an  "  atone- 
ment for  your  sins ! 

After  the  late  avowals  of  your  advocate,  he  must  be  sceptical 
indeed  who  doubts  your  heresy.  After  you  have  denied  the 
plenary  inspiration  of  tiie  Scriptures,  the  infallibility  of  the 
Apostles, — tlie  correctness  of  our  translation — and  the  suffici- 
ency of  the  Bible  as  a  rule, — (see  your  Letters  on  internal 
light) — after  you  have  stigmatized  Trinitarianism  as  ♦*  Tri- 
theism,*' — after  you  have  rejected  the  doctrine  of  all  Christen- 
dom concerning  the  divinity  of  Christ,  denying  the  divinity  of 
his  person^  and  admitting  only  the  divinity  of  his  name^ — after 
you  have  rejected  the  atonement^  and  directed  us  for  justifica' 
Hon  to  our  own  personal  rigliteousness,  he  must  be  blind  him- 
self, who  does  not  see  your  blindness ! 

i  have  been  lately  reviewing  your  Letters  on  the  Trinity^  and 
have  been  much  struck  with  the  boldness,  and  even  blasphemy 
of  your  sentiments.  And  as  the  subject  hath  an  intimate  con- 
nection with  our  present  subject,  before  noticing  his  last,  I  will 
briefly  notice  a  few  things,  which  if  <*  Amicus"  has  proved  any 
things  he  has  fully  proved 

1.  That  the  terms  **  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,"  have  no 
meaning  as  thuy  are  used  in  Scripture  !    In  page  369,  he  says  : 

Christ  and  the  Father  are  convertible  terms."  The  terms 
<*  Father,"  and  "  Christ,"  and  tife  Comforter,"  are,  when 
applied  to  the  Deity,  perfectly  synonymous ;  and  consequently, 
God  the  Father,  is  Christ  the  Saviour  !  /"  And  in  page  377  he 
says  :  **  I  showed  that  the  terms  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost, 
when  applied  to  the  divinity,  mean  the  same  thing  !  /"  It  seems 
then,  that  "  Father"  expresses  my  paternal,  and  "  Son"  no  filial 
relatifm  !  and  the  Holy  Gliost"  no  spiritual  character  !  \V  hat 
a  pity  the  sacred  penmen  had  not  been  kept,  by  inspiration,  from 
applying  to  the  Deity  epithets  which  have  no  meaning  1 

2.  He  has  discovered  that  the  account  of  our  Lord's  baptism 
(Matt.  iii.  16,  17.)  is  a  mere  farce  ! — suited  to  the  carnal  no- 
tions of  the  Jews  !  «  To  suppose,*'  says  he,  page  380,  **  one 
person  of  the  Godhead  walking  up  out  of  the  water,  while  a 
second  person  is  descending  in  the  shape  of  a  dove,  and  a  third 


454 


person  uttering  a  voice  from  heaven,  is  altogether  inconsistentf 
and  does  indeed  appear  a  gross  and  carnal  conception." 
Reader,  look  at  your  Bible,  remember  it  >\as  written  not  for 
learned  philosophers,  but  for  humble  e very-day  people,  and 
judge  whether  the  above  account  was  intended  as  a  farce,  or 
as  an  exhibition  of  the  ♦*  Three  that  bear  record  in  heaven  !" 

3.  That  our  Lord  used  **  vain  repttiiions^*  in  tUeform  of  bap- 
tism, Matt*  xxviii.  ly,  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Now,  says  <*  Amicus,"  these  terms  all  mean  the 
same  thing  /"  Quere,  did  not  our  Lord  understand  language 
as  well  as  "  Amicus  ^" 

4.  That  our  Lord  used  words  without  meaning  and  calculated 
to  mislead,  when  he  spake  of  sending  the  Comforter,  John  xiv. 
26,  «  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things." 
And  again,  xvi.  7 :  **  It  is  expedient  for  you  that  /  go  away, 
for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  ^ou  ;  but 
if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto  you."  How  plain,  how  con- 
sistent, how  beautiful  is  this  language  on  supposition  of  the 
Trinity  I  and  how  dark,  how  unsatisfactory,  yea  deceptive 
upon  any  other  scheme  ! 

5.  He  objects  to  any  argument  being  drawn  from  "pro- 
nouns  /"  In  answer  to  one  of  my  arguments,  drawn  from  John 
xiv.  23,  "  If  a  man  love  me  he  will  keep  my  words,  and  my 
Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him  and  take  up 
our  abode  with  him," — he  remarks  very  seriously,  (see  page 
408,)  that  this  argument,  like  most  of  my  opponent's  scheme, 
is  founded  on  the  use  of  the  pronouns/  The  use  of  personal 
pronouns  when  a{)plied  to  the  Deity  does  not  prove  personality.** 
(Juere  ;  if  arguments  cannot  be  drav^n  from  "  pj:'onouns,"  can 
any  be  drawn  from  nouns,  verbs,  adjectives,  or  any  other  part  of 
speech  ? 

6.  That  no  mysterif^  is  to  be  believed.  He  has  all  along 
used  mystery"  and  "  inconsistency"  as"  convertible  terms." 
Of  course  wlien  the  Apostle  calls  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel 

the  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  Gnd,**  1  Cor.  iv.  1,  he  must 
mean  they  are  preachers  of  things  not  to  be  believed/.'/  And 
when  he  says,  1  Tim.  iii.  1(5,  "  Great  is  the  mystery  of  Godli- 
ness, God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  he  must  mean  «  great  is 
the  absurdity  of  Godliness,  which  teaches  God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh,  or  that  Christ  was  a  divine  person  !  !'*  The  fact  is, 
every  doctrine  of  the  Bible  contains  something  mysterious  and 
incomprehensible,  and  if  we  are  to  believe  nothing  but  what  we 
can  fully  comprehend,  we  may  give  up  the  doctrine  of  re^enera- 


455 


iloiif  which  our  Lord  describes  as  a  mystery.  John  iii.  8.  and 
turn  universal  sceptics. 

7.  That  the  true  God  is  a  phantom,"  a  "nothing  !"  For 
he  has  again  and  again  argued,  until  the  public  were  tired, 
that  the  **  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost"  are  either  three  *«  sub- 
stances," or  •*  three  notliings  or  phantoms.'*  (Sec  page  338.)  As  to 
their  being    three  substancesy^^  he  has  said  this  is  equivalent  to 

three  Gods,"  which  he  rejects.  According  to  his  own  and 
Penn's  argument,  therefore,  he  has  proved,  if  he  has  proved 
any  thing,  that  these  are  *<  three  unreal,  unsubstantial  phan- 
toms or  nothings! !  !"  Now  as  these  terms  are  used  in  Scrip- 
ture as  the  name  of  the  only  true  God,  it  follows,  so  far  as  he  has 
proved  any  thing,  he  lias  proved  that  the  God  of  Israel  is  a 
«•  phantom,"  a  **  nothing  ! !" 

8.  That  the  whole  Christian  world  are  Tritheists,  That  the 
M<Hh()dists,  Baptists,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Lutherans, 
&c.  all  worship  three  Gods  /  For  the  whole  are  l^rinitarians  : 
and  he  has  said  again  and  again,  that  **  Trinitarianism  and 
Tritheism  are  only  different  names  for  the  same  thing."  And 
again,-—**  it  is  downright  Tritheism,"  &c.  (See  page  394.) 
Thus  he  has  excommunicated  not  only  the  **  Calvinistic" 
churches,  but  those  which  have  a  tincture  of  Arminianism. 

The  articles  of  the  Episcopalian  and  Methodist  churches,  are 
on  this  subject  precisely  the  same  with  those  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian and  Baptist  churches. 

Yourselves  therefore  being  judges,  we  and  you  do  not  wor- 
ship the  same  object.  Between  you  and  us,  according  to  your 
own  testimony,  there  is  a  **  great  gulf  fixed"--.we  are  of  differ- 
ent religions  ! 

Now  as  you  have  long  known  our  sentiments  on  these  sub- 
jects, (for  unlike  yourselves,  we  publish  our  doctrines  to  the 
world,)  you  must  have  always  regarded  us  as  Tritheists,  and  of 
course  not  Christians,  It  follows,  therefore,  that  you  have  ne- 
ver looked  upon  us  as  Christian  churches  at  all,  but  as  you  once 
expresed  it :  **  an  apostatized  church  !" 

Let  us  hear  no  more  therefore  of  your  <*  charity^^  for  us,  for 
it  now  appears  you  never  had  any  I — neither  expect  any  fellow- 
siiipfromus ;  forthough  not  Tritheists,  we  believe  ourselves  to  be 
just  as  far  off  as  you  think  we  are.  In  other  words,  we  are  of  a 
different  religion,  have  a  different  God,  a  different  Saviour,  and 
a  totally  different  way  of  Salvation  ! 

DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

Secondly;  that  we  and  you  have  a  different  Saviour,  will 
appear  from  noticing  your  remarks  on  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
Among  the  things  which  show  that  he  holds  1o  a  mere  human 
Saviour, 


456 


1.  He  says  that  Clirist's  power  was  all  "  delegated.^^  I  had 
quoted  the  Saviour's  declaration,  John  x.  18,  "  1  lay  down  my 
life  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  power  to  take 
it  again."  Amicus"  says  (page  434,)  he  did  not  lay  it  down**  of 
himself^*  but  by  power  **  given"  to  him,  **  delegated"  to  him  trom 
God  !  As  if  divine  power  could  be  delegated  !  Jf  by  **  delegation" 
he  means  no  more  than  that  God  wrought  by  Jesus  as  an  instru- 
ment, then  Jesus  was  no  more  divine  than  Feter  or  Paul^  to 
whom  God  "  delegated"  power  equally  great.  But  if,  as  y(»u  pro- 
bably mean,  his  divinity  was  delegated,  then,  either  the  Fattier 
annihilated  Himself  to  make  Christ  divine,  or  we  have  two  Gods.'! 
the  one  Original — the  other  originated — delegated — made!!! 

2.  His  "  Christ,"  it  appears,  is  not  a  •*  person,"  but  a  "name ;" 
and  his  **  divinity  of  Christ,"  of  which  he  has  boasted  so  much, 
turns  out  to  be  not  the  divinity  of  a  person  but  a  name.  He 
absolutely  rejects  and  ridicules  the  idea  of  *Jesus  of  Nazareth 
being  a  "divine  person,"  and  understands  Isa.  vii.  14,  and  ix. 
6,  as  not  asserting  the  divinity  of  the  person  of  Jesus,  but  the 
divinity  of  his  name!  A  most  sage  distinction  ! — a  most  **  ra- 
tional" way  of  getting  over  a  **  mystery  !"  As  if  the  name  of 
a  person  when  rightly  given  (as  it  was  in  this  case,  being  by  di- 
vine direction,)  was  not  designative  of  his  person,  and  descrip- 
tive of  his  character ! 

As  this  is  a  favourite  quibble  of  your  Society,  I  will  bestow 
upon  it  more  notice  than  it  deserves. 

First,  let  us  hmk  again  at  the  text,  Isa.  ix.  6,  *<  Unto  us  a 
child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given," — a  person,  a  being,  is 
here  spoken  of,  not  a  mere  name  ; — **  and  the  government  sliall 
be  upon  his  shoulder," — not  on  the  shoulder  of  a  name,  but  of  a 
person — "  his  shoulder — **  And  his  name  (not  the  name  of  his 
name)  shall  be  called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the  mighty  God,, 
the  everlasting  Father,  (literally  the  Father  of  eter  nity,)  the 
Prince  of  Peace."  Any  one  the  least  acquainted  with  the  st>le  of 
Scripture,  knows  that  *<  to  be  called,^'  in  sucli  a  connection,  is  the 
same  as  *<  to  6e."  The  name  is  intended  to  express  tlic  charac- 
ter of  the  ;7er5on;  and  therefore,  the  above  phrase  is  equivalent 
to  saying :  *<  this  person  who  shall  be  born,  shall  he  the  mighty 
God,  the  Father  of  eternity,  the  Prince  of  Peace  !" 

Secondly ;  compare  other  examples,  Gen.  xvii.  5 :  <*  Thy 
name  shall  be  Mraham,  (i.  e.  father  of  a  multitude)  for  a  fa- 
ther of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee,'^ 

Quere,  was  his  name  the  <♦  father'of  nations,"  or  was  Abra- 
ham himself  the  <*  father"  here  spoken  of? 

Again;  Gen.  xxxii.  28:  "And  he  said,  thy  ?ia7?ie  shall  be 
no  more  Jacob,  but  Israel,  (Prince  of  God,)  for  as  a  Prince  hast 
thou  power  with  God  and  with  man,  and  hast  prevailed."  Querc, 


457 


was  not  Jacob  himself  this  "  Prince," — or  was  notliing  but  lii* 
name  "  Prince  ?" 

Again  ;  it  is  said  of  Solomon,  2  Sam.  xii.  25  :  ^<  And  the 
Lord  loved  him,  and  he  called  his  name  Jedediuh,^^  (beloved  of 
the  Lord.)    Quere,  was  not  Solomon  /iijuse//"  beloved  ? 

Again  ;  Isaiah  xlii.  8  :  **I  am  Jehovah,  (the  self-existent, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable  God,)  that  is  my  name."  Quere,  is 
not  the  Deity  himself  «  self-existent  and  eternal  — or  do  these 
attributes  belong  only  to  his  name?''' 

In  view  of  all  these  parallel  passages,  let  the  candid  reader 
judge  whether  Christ's  name,  or  Christ  himself  is  the  mighty 
'God  I  r 

But  you  object:  ^<  name  signifies  pott^er,  and  these  passages 
mean  no  more  than  that  divine  power  shall  manifest  itst  lf  in 
him."  Answer:  If  his  exercising  divine  po7^er,  was  the  <mly 
thing  that  rendered  him  "  divine,"  then  Peter  and  Paul  were 
also  divine,  for  they  were  gifted  with  divine  power,  as  appears 
by  their  miracles.  So  that  you  hold,  as  1  have  before  stated, 
the  divinity  of  Jesus,  no  more  than  the  divinity  of  his  Apos- 
tles !  You  look  upon  Jesus,  in  all  except  his  name,  as  a  mere 
man;  and  I  have  little  doubt  many  of  you  would  join  with  an 
eminent  lady  of  your  society  in  this  borough,  in  saying,  that 

George  Fox  was  as  good  a  man  as  Jesus  Christ !  ! !" 

It  therefore  appears,  that  the  Saviour  you  preach,  is  a  Sa- 
viour only  in  name — the  divinity  of  Christ,  is  the  divinity  of  a 
name — .and  the  object  of  your  trust,  is  a  mere  name/  / 

3.  **  God  in  Christ  is  the  true  and  exclusive  divinity  of  Christ 
This  is  a  favourite  expression  of  yours.  To  which  I  might  an- 
swer :  God  in  Moses,  is  the  true  divinity  of  Moses''' — "God  in 
Paul,  is  the  true  divinity  of  Paul !  J  /"  If  there  was  no  personal 
union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  one  person  in  Jesus, 
then  Moses  and  many  others,  are  as  divine  as  the  Son  of  Mary. 

4),  You  make  it  as  a  very  important  distinction,  that  *<  It  is 
not  said  He  shall  be  called,  but  his  name  shall  be  called  the 
Mighty  God."  There  is  no  difference  in  the  meaning  of  the 
terms.  See  Luke  i.  60,  63.  But  contrary  to  his  assertion,  it 
is  expressly  said :  Jer.  xxiii.  6  ;  He  shall  be  called  the  LORD 
(Jehovah)  our  righteousness."  According  to  your  own  impli- 
ed admission,  therefore,  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  a  divine  person  ! 

5.  You  seem  to  think,  that  **  power'*  is  the  only  attribute  of 
Grod  employed  in  our  salvation.  And  ali  ytju  want  of  a  Saviour, 
is  ^*  power"  to  bring  "  your  will  into  subjection  to  the  divine 
will,"  to  work  in  you  a  "substantial  righteousness  of  heart 
and  life."  If  so,  what  need  was  there  of  his  incarnation,  his 
obedience,  sufferings  and  death  !  He  was  as  almighty  before  as 
he  is  now.  But  whatever  you  feel,  Christians  feel  their  need 
f»8 


4^5S 

not  only  of  power  to  change  their  hearts,  hut  of  an  atonement  to 
deliver  them  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  and  an  obedience^  or  a 
righteousness  to  entitle  them  to  life.  They  feel  their  need  of 
Christ  as  a  Friest,  as  well  as  a  King. 

In  short,  you  hold  the  *<  divinity  of  Christ,"  just  as  you  do 
Baptism"  and  the    Lord's  Supper,"  in  a  sense  which  amounts 
to  a  real  and  total  rejection  of  the  Christian  doctrine  I ! 

On  this  suhject  the  Christian  public  will  no  longer  be  deceiv- 
ed, by  any  plausible  abuse  of  Scripture  termSf  or  equivocations 
you  may  use. 

1  now  proceed  to  notice  his  remarks  on  the  doctrine  of 

ATONEMENT. 

1.  He  admits,  as  the  Bible  compels  him,  that  we  are  to  be 
saved  by  the  ^^righteousness  of  Christ^  This  seems  fair  and 
promising  !  But  take  care,  lest  this  «  righteousness  '  of  Christ 
turn  out,  like  the  "  divinity  of  Christ,"  to  be  a  mere  abuse  of 
terms.  What  does  he  mean  by  this  phrase  ?  Hear !  «  w3  real 
substantial  righteousness  of  heart  and  life  was  and  is  the  only 
KiGHTEousNEss  OF  Christ  ! ! !"  This  is  really  another  name 
for  our  personal  righteousness 9  and  is  only  Pharisaism  baptized 
"with  a  Christian  name.  You  see.  Christians,  how  little  jje 
makes  of  Christ's  sufferings^  and  death,  and  active  obedience, 
which  we  view  as  an  essential  part  of  that  righteousness  '  by 
which  we  are  to  be  justified.  You  see  how  little  they  make  of 
the  "  cross"  in  which  the  Apostle  gloried,  Gal.  vi.  14;  and  of 
that  blood,"  without  which  there  is  no  remission  of  sins." 
Heb.  ix.  22 ;  and  of  that  "  death'*  which  Was  a  ransom  for 
many."  Matt.  xxii.  28.  All  they  want  of  iiim,  is  some  assistance 
in  conquering  their  evil  natures,  and  producing  in  them  a  **  sub- 
stantial righteousness  of  heart  and  life."  They  need  no  atone- 
mentt  using  this  word  in  its  proper  sense,  as  meaning  a  satisfac- 
Hon,  an  expiatory  price. 

2.  Speaking  of  the  atonement,  he  says:  "Atonement''  and 
«  reconciliation"  mean  the  same  thing,  are  synonymous  terms. 
«  The  rebellious  will  of  man  must  be  brought  into  subjection  to 
the  will  of  God,  before  the  Gospel  atonement  can  possibly  be 
made  !  !  /"  Behold,  then.  Christian  brethren,  the  mistake  un- 
der which  the  whole  Christian  world  has  always  laboured!  They 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  regarding  the  DEATH  OF  CHRIST 
as  the  GREAT  ATONEMENT  offered  for  the  sins  of  the 
world  !  But  here  we  aretauglit  thaj:  there  is  no  such  atonement — 
that  the  only  atonement  was  not  made  on  Calvary,  but  is  made 
in  our  hearts,  by  a  subjecting  of  our  wills  to  the  divine  will,'* 
and  by  a  "  substantial  righteousness  of  heart  and  life  ! ! !"  The 
only    atonement"  in  which  the  Friends  believe,  consists  in  a 


459 


moral  life,  with  a  part  of  the  merit  of  which  they  compliment 
the  Deity ! 

Thus  you  reduce  to  a  mere  name^  the  DIVINITY  and 
ATONEMENT  of  Jesus  Christ,  an.i  treat  with  contempt  two 

ESSENTIAL,  FUNDAMENTAL  and  DISTINGUISHING  doctriuCS  of 

Christianity !  PAUL. 

Sixth-day,  11th  mo.  29,  1822. 

LETTER  XL. 

"  J^Tot  the  hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of 
i     the  law  shall  be  justified, Rom.  ii.  13. 

When  Paul"  commenced  his  series  of  Letters  to  the  Re- 
I  ligious  Society  of  Friends,  it  might  be  supposed  he  meant  them 
as  an  invitation  to  embrace  the  Calvinistic  scheme.  When, 
by  a  course  of  reasoning,  he  attempted  to  sustain  his  views,  it 
may  be  taken  for  granted,  that  he  supposed  that  scheme  a  ra- 
iional  one.  Amicus  believed  it  was  both  irrational  and  unscrip- 
tural — absurd  in  theory,  and  wholly  repugnant  to  the  plain  and 
decided  testimony  of  the  inspired  penmen.  To  try  this  point 
has  been  the  duty  of  Amicus,  not  only  to  excuse  ourselves  for 
rejecting  it,  but  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  into  view  doctrines 
i  more  worthy  of  the  Divine  character — doctrines  which  demand 
the  assent  of  our  reason,  and  recommend  themselves  by  their 
purity,  their  simplicity,  their  eiscellence  ; — doctrines  calculat- 
ed to  manifest  the  unbounded  love  of  God  to  his  rational  family, 
and  adapted  to  every  capacity,  as  the  only  means  of  happiness 
in  this  world,  and  of  eternal  felicity  in  the  world  to  come. 

This  point  has  now  been  tested  ;  and  I  think  the  most  scep- 
tical, the  most  prejudiced  (in  the  moment  of  cool  reflection) 
must  admit,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  explained  and 
enforced  by  my  opponent,  is  irrational,  absurd,  and  grossly  bias- 
phemous  !  !  I  I  am  aware  that  many  who  are  called  Trinitari- 
ans, have  views  of  this  subject  that  widely  differ  from  Paul's," 
and  approach  much  nearer  the  standard  of  Scripture  truth. 
Many  of  these,  I  have  heard  express  themselves,  with  as  much 
disgust  at  the  opinions  of  my  opponent,  as  ever  /  have  done  ; 
and  some  of  them,  in  friendly  conference  on  the  subject,  have 
differed  from  me  in  very  little,  except  the  terms  they  used. 
The  truth  is,  as  expressed  by  Amicus,  in  his  first  Letter  on  this 
point :  "  thtrii,  is  no  commonly  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity:** — 
I  mean,  that  among  those,  who,  with  the  strongest  intel- 
lectual powers^ — the  greatest  learning — and  largest  opportu- 


460 


nity  of  conference  with  religious  characters,  have  thought  and 
wrote  on  this  subject,  there  is  tlie  greatest  variety  and  contra- 
riety    opinion — the  greatest  jarring  and  confusion  ! ! ! 

Now  this  is  not  at  all  wonderful,  when  we  consider,  that  this 
doctrine  originated  in  a  departure  from  the  spirit  and  language 
of  the  holy  penmen — in  a  desertion  of  that  standard, 'wUiah  these 
sectaries  acknowledge  as  ♦<  the  only  inJaLlible  rule !  !  /"  For,  as 
Dr.  Taylor  has  said  :  «  he  that  goes  about  to  speak  of  a  Trinity, 
and  does  it  by  words  and  names  of  man's  invention,  and  by  the 
distinctions  of  the  schools,  if  he  only  talk  of  essences,  and  exis- 
tences, hypostases  and  personalities,  distinctions  tvithout  differ- 
ence, priority  in  co-equalities,  and  unity  in  pluralities,  he  may 
amuse  himself,  and  build  tabernacles  in  his  head,  and  talk  some- 
thing, but  he  knows  not  what  I  !  /"  Serm.  John  vii.  17. 

That  this  has  been  the  awkward  situation  of  my  poor  bewil- 
dered opponent,  has  been  seen  by  his  own  papers.  He  has 
virtually  confessed  that  he  does  not  understand  his  subject.— 
He  has  been  "  talking  something  but  he  knows  not  whaf — 
Unhappily  for  his  cause  he  thought  otherwise,  and  attempting 
to  be  wise  above  that  which  is  written,"  he  has  run  into  the 
grossest  errors  that  have  appeared  in  print  for  two  hundred 
years ! — He  has  published  to  the  world,  in  characters  not  to  be 
obliterated,  that  God  the  Creator  of  the  world  was  born 
rouR  thousand  years  after  the  Creation  ! ! ! — He  has 
told  us  that  «  Jehovah,  the  author  of  life,  was  killed  !!!" 
Such  conclusions,  offered  to  the  attention  of  reflecting  men, 
must  be  productive  of  deep  felt  disgust,  and  tend  to  precipitate 
the  downfall  of  a  doctrine,  whose  doom  is  sealed,  that  it  shall 
surely  die 

The  term  ♦<  person,"  and  its  derivatives,  "  Paul"  uses  in 
one  of  his  Letters  more  than  forty  times  /  He  says :  the 
question  between  Unitarians  and  Christians  is,  whether  the 
union  of  the  human  nature  with  the  Divine  nature,  was  so  per- 
fect, as  to  constitute  but  one  person." — Now  can  '*Paul"  tell 
us  what  he  means  by  the  term  "  person?-^ — <*  Boethius/'  Ac- 
quinas,"  «  Calvin,"  «  Archbishop  Usher,"  "  Bishop  Stilling- 
flect,"  "John  Locke,"  *«  Laurentius,"  «Valla,"  "  Wallis,"  and 

Sherlock,"  all  attempt  to  define  it,  and  scarcely  two  of  them 
agree.  Some  of  them  define  it  philosophically,  and  some  with 
reference  to  the  doctrine  of  saint  Athanasius.  Of  the  latter, 
some  are  unequivocally  TRITHEISTS,  and  some  SABEL- 
LIANS.  But  Dr.  Miller,  who  published  his  notions  on  the 
subject  about  a  year  ago,  is  so  candid  as  to  say :  <^  If  it  be 
asked  what  kind  of  distinction  is  that  which  is  expressed  by 
the  word  person?  We  frankly  timwev  we  do  not  know  / / /" 
Perhaps,  however,  my  sagacious  opponent,  more  accute  than 


461 


the  learned  doctor,  lias  scented  out  its  meaning! — If  so,  and  he 
would  oblige  us  bv  defining  it,  perhaps  we  might  answer  the 
question  between  the  Christians  and  the  Unitarians  I  If  he 
cannot  define  it,  then,  according  to  his  own  acknowledgment, 
the  question  will  be  :  ^'•Whether  the  union  of  the  two  natures  was 
so  perfect  as  to  coiistitute  something,  we  know  not  what ! !  /" 
Novv  1  hope  "Paul"  will  be  so  kind  as  either  to  define  this 
mysterious  word,  or,  like  Dr.  Miller,  frankly  to  tell  us,  he  does 
not  know  its  meaning. 

But  though  my  opponent  has,  in  his  elaborate  xxxixth  Let- 
ter, used  this  word  and  its  derivations  more  than  forty  times, 
yet  the  sacred  writers  have  never  used  it  once,  as  applicable  to 
our  Saviour  ! ! !  What  clearer  proof  can  we  desire,  that  it  and 
the  doctrine  it  inculcates,  are  wholly  foreign  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Gospel  ?  What  better  evidence  can  we  have,  that  the  scheme 
it  supports,  is  the  invention  of  men? — the  legitimate  fruit  of 
apostacy  from  Christ,  and  justly  to  be  ranked  among  the  con- 
trivances of  antichrist,  to  draw  away  the  mind  from  the  purity 
and  simplicity  of  the  Christian  faith  ? 

Thus  we  have  it  in  evidence,  that  the  Trinitarian  scheme 
is  unscriptural  and  irrational  !  I  am  however  aware,  that  a 
writer  who  only  points  out  the  errors  of  any  system,  leaves  at 
least  half  his  work  undone  !  and  therefore,  I  have  been  careful 
in  the  course  of  this  discussion,  not  only  to  prove  the  absurdi- 
ty of  my  opponent's  scheme,  but  by  frequent  reference  to  the 
inspired  writings,  and  by  plain  deductions  from  them,  to  shew, 
that  the  Society  I  advocate,  have  embraced  such  views  and  opi- 
nions of  the  Divine  nature,  as  are  closely  in  accordance  with 
those  of  the  sacred  writers ! 

As  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  connection  with  the  atone- 
ment, embraces  the  Calvinistic  plan  of  salvation,  from  which 
we  essentially  differ,  it  will,  I  presume,  be  interesting  to  the 
candid  inquirer  after  truth,  to  see  our  views  contrasted.  In  one 
great  point  we  all  agree,  that  Christ  is  the  only  means  or 
SALVATION,"  "there  is  no  other  name  imdev  heaven,  given 
among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved,'*  Acts  iv.  12.  In  the 
mode  by  which  the  great  work  of  man's  redemption  is  effected, 
lies  the  diflference  between  us ! 

In  my  last  I  gave  our  views  of  the  origin,  nature,  and  eflfects 
of  sin.  In  my  opponent's  reply  he  does  not  attempt  to  con- 
trovert my  statements  on  this  point.  I  presume  therefore  we 
do  not  differ  on  it. — Sin  is  a  taint,  a  disease  of  the  soul,  aris- 
ing from  disobedience  to  the  revealed  will  of  God.  It  separates 
man  from  God,  the  source  of  divine  life  and  light.  It  is,  as  the 
Apostle  describes  it,  <*  a  middle  wall  of  partition  between  the 
soul  and  its  Creator,"  Eph.  ii.  1*. 


U2 


Now  in  order  that  sinners  may  experience  the  only  Gospel 
atonementf  we  believe  this  *»  middle  wall  of  partion,"  must  be 
"  broken  down" — that  God  never  can  be  reconciled  to  man, 
whilst  he  is  in  a  state  of  sin.  <♦  For  whosoever  conimiiteth  sin, 
is  the  servant  of  sin,''  John  viii.  34.  **  And  his  servants  ye  arc 
to  whom  ye  obey,  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  obedience  unto 
righteousness,*'  Rom.  vi.  16  :  He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the 
devil," — and  *< for  this  purpose  the  Son  of  Ood  was  manifested 
that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  deviL'^  1  John  iii.  8. 

Here  we  see  in  plain  Scripture  language,  that  the  very  pur- 
pose of  Christ's  coming,  was  to  *<  destroy  the  works  of  the  De- 
vil"— to  reconcile  us  to  God,  to  "  make  both  one,"'  not  by  a  no- 
minal atonement  or  imputative  righteousness 9  but  by  actually 

breaking  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us." — 
No  man,  nor  all  the  power  of  men  and  angels,  can  break  down 
this  wall.— Unless diuiwe  power  interpose,  the  sinner  is  lost — the 
«  wall"  must  remain  an  everlasting  barrier  between  God  and 
his  soul ! — This  wall  is  sin — **  the  work  of  the  devil" — the  fruit 
or  effect  of  disobedience  ;  and  Christ,  who  is  "  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh,"  is  the  only  power  that  can  destroy  it,  and  so,  make 
an  effectual  atonement  between  the  soul  and  the  source  of  di- 
vine purity  ! 

Now  the  very  object  of  Christ's  coming  is  to  communicate 
this  power  to  the  soul ;  and  by  a  *«  new  birth"  of  the  divine  na- 
ture, to  lay  the  Gospel  ^«  axe  to  the  root  of  the  corrupt  tree  !" — 
This  was  the  forerunner's  first  annunciation  of  the  Gospel  that 
eame  by  Jesus  Christ— and  his  second  was  similar  in  its  na- 
ture— He  [Christ]  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
with  fire  ;  whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thoroughly 
purge  his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner,  but  the 
chaff  he  will  burn  with  fire  unquenchable."  Luke  iii.  9,  16, 
17.  But  this,  fellow  Christians,  is  not  easy  work  to  the  sin- 
ner— he  does  not  like  this  fire-work — he  does  not  relish  the  idea 
of  burning  his  chaff-^he  does  not  like  to  part  with  his  beloved 
sins — he  does  not  desire  an  atonement  on  these  conditions  ! ! ! 
And  therefore,  ^<  the  whole  Christian  world,"  the  whole  world 
of  carnal  Christians  of  every  religious  society^  prefer  an  "  im- 
putative  righteousness^* — prefer  a  smooth  easy  road  to  heaven — 
«  have  been  in  the  habit  of  regarding  the  death  of  Christ" — the 
sufferings  of  another,  more  than  seventeen  hundred  years  before 
they  were  born,  «  as  the  Great  Atonement*' — as  having  paid 
the  price  of  their  sins,  as  having  made  satisfaction  for  them,  and 
so,  reversing  the  order  of  the  Gospel,  they  have  found  out  a  way 
of  reconciling  the  purity  of  God  with  the  flthiness  of  a  sinner — 
a  way  of  mixing  light  and  darkness  together,  away  of  bringing 
Christ  into  cancord  with  Belial!// 


463 


it  is  no  wonder  that  this  plan  of  salvation,  so  congenial  to  the 
corrupt  inclinations  of  sinful  men,  has  so  many  advocates  !  It 
is  no  wonder  that  the  world,  under  such  teaching,  should  pre- 
sent a  scene  of  selfishness  and  corruption — that  the  strong 
man  armed,"  with  all  his  defilement,  should  keep  possession  of 
the  house — ihat  the  religion  of  the  Scrihes  and  Pharisees  should 
be  the  religion  of  Christendom  ! ! ! 

My  opponent  seems  much  offended  that  I  said  :  «  the  righ- 
teousness of  Christ  was  and  is  a  real  substantial  righteousness 
in  the  heart  and  life  !" — he  thinks  this  **  an  abuse  of  terms." — 
Now  what  could  it  be? — Was  it  an  unreal,  substantial  righte- 
ousness ?  It  has  been  already  proved,  from  Paul's"  own  state- 
ments, that  the  three  persons  that  compose  his  Deity,  are 
«<  unreal  and  unsubstantial.'*  See  Amicus'  xxxivth  Letter,  p. 
36i.  My  opponent  is  therefore  quite  consistent  in  supposing, 
the  rightheousness  of  one  of  his  unreal  unsubstantial  'persons,  is 
ima^inarij!!! — an  imputative  righteousness  must  necessarily  be 
unreal  and  unsubstantial  /// 

Calvin  teaches,  that  men  SLvejustiJiedf "  not  by  infusing  righte- 
ousness into  them,"  not  by  becoming  really  righteous,  "  but  by 
accounting  and  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous ;  not  for 
any  thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  by  imputing 
to  them  the  obedience  of  Christ  for  their  whole  and  sole  righte- 
ousness ! ! !"  Thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  made  a  kind 
of  a  cloak,  to  cover  the  filthy  sinner,  when  nothing  has  been 
"  wrought  in  him,  or  done  by  him,"  but  the  works  of  sin  and 
iniquity  !  Again:  "  Christ  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did  ful- 
ly discharge  the  debt  of  all  thus  justified ;  and  by  undergoing 
in  their  stead,  the  penalty  due  unto  them,  did  make  a  proper 
and  full  satisfaction  to  God's  justice  in  their  behalf"  Thus, 
the  debt  being  paid,  these  sinners  under  a  cloak,  may  go  on  in 
their  sins,  and  God  will  accept  them,  and  justify  them  because 
of  the  cloak  they  wear !!! 

This  conclusion  is  supported,  not  only  by  the  general  con- 
duct of  most  Christian  professors,  but  by  other  parts  of  Calvin's 
scheme:  for  he  tells  us,  that  those"  who  have  once  put  on  this 
cloak,  «  never  can  fall  from  a  state  of  justification,  although, 
by  their  sins,  they  may  fall  under  God's  displeasure  ! ! !"  Thus, 
though  God  has  expressly  said:  "  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked." 
Exod.  xxiii.  7. — this  doctrine  contradicts  him ! ! !  It  teaches 
us,  that  men  may  be  under  God's  displeasure  because  of  their 
wickedness,  and  yet  be  justified  by  him  at  the  same  time  ! — 
that  they  may  stand  in  a  two-fold  character — at  once  the  servants 
of  sin,  and  the  servants  of  God  ! ! !"  It  renders  a  m2ix\  justified 
and  condemned,  alive  and  dead,  redeemed  and  not  redeemed  at 
the  same  instant  ^  the  former,  by  an  imputative  righteousness, 


the  latter,  by  a  personal  unrighteousness.** — The  doctnne  is 
absurd  ! 

But  it  is  not  only  absurd,  it  is  higlily  danj^erous.  It  flat- 
ters men,  while  subject  to  the  world's  lusts,  with  a  state  of  jus- 
tification, and  thereby  invalidates  the  ver^  end  of  Christ's 
appearance,  which  was  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil," 
and  to  **  take  away  sin." 

That  there  is  but  one  kind  of  righteousness,  by  which  we 
can  be  saved,  is  abundantly  manifest  throughout  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  this  is  «  a  real  substantial  righteousness  of  the 
heart  and  life."  It  is  often  called  by  the  sacred  penmi'n,  *'the 
righteousness  of  God," — because  God  is  its  author.  Rom  iii  5, 
21,  22,  &c.  &c.  It  is  called  **  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  Rom. 
iv.  13,  because  it  is  produced  by  obedience  to  the  W(>rd  of  GjkI, 
nigh  in  the  heart  by  faith.  See  Rom.  x.  6,  7,  8.  It  has  also 
many  other  appellations  in  Scripture,  but  all  meaning  the  same 
thing. 

There  is  also  another>kind  of  righteousness,  described  by  the 
inspired  penmen,  called  «♦  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the 
Law.'*  Rom.  ii.  26. — viii.  4. — x.  5.  Matt.  v.  20.  The  former 
is  the  righteousness  of  the  true  Christian,  the  Jew  inward; 
«  whose  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in 
the  letter 9  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of  God,'''  Rom.  ii.  29.  It 
is  produced  by  his  submission  to  the  operation  of  the  spirit  of 
Christ  in  the  soul,  whereby  he  experiences  repentance  from 
sin,  his  "own  will  brought  into  subjection  to  the  will  of  God," 
and  his  whole  life  and  conversation  made  conformable  to  the 
holy  pattern  of  his  Lord.  In  this  way  sin  comes  to  be  mortified, 
the  partition  wall  to  be  broken  down,  the  dead  raised,  and  the 
true  Gospel  atonement  to  be  experienced.  This  is  "  THE 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIS  1."  The  latter  is  a  right- 
eousness  much  more  common  in  the  world  !  It  is  a  righteous- 
ness, "  baptized  indeed  with  a  Christian  name,"  but  which  is 
nothing  more  than  "the  righteousness  of  the  Pharisee !"  It 
is  an  **  imputative  righteousness,^^  which  a  man  can  possess  in 
an  unsanctified  and  corrupt  state  !  It  is  a  very  accommodating 
kind  of  righteousness,  it  will  live  on  good  terms  with  sin,  and 
in  familiarity  with  iniquity  !  It  is  a  kind  of  cloak,  that  is 
used  to  cover  the  outside,  while  the  inside  is  defiled  with  gross 
impurity  !  It  is  "like  whited  sepulchres,  which  indeed  appear 
beautiful  outward,  but  within  are  full  of  dead  men's  bones  and 
all  manner  of  uncleanness !"  Matt,  xxiii.  27.  It  blows  a  trum- 
pet when  it  gives  an  alms  !  It  makes  long  prayers  to  be  seen 
of  men  !  It  compasseth  sea  and  land  to  make  one  proselyte, 
and  then  makes  him  two-fold  more  the  child  of  hell  than  he  was 
before ! — It  tythes  mint,  annise,  and  cummin,  and  neglects  the 


465 


Weightier  matters  of  the  Law,  judgment,  mer6y,  and  faith 
It  binds  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to  be  borne,  and  lays  them 
On  men's  shoulders,  but  will  do  nothing  to  remove  them  !  It 
makes  broad  the  phylactery,  and  enlarges  the  border  of  the 
garment ! — It  loves  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts,  the  chief 
seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the  markets,  and 
to  be  called  of  men  rabbi,  rabbi! — It  makes  a  great  noise 
about  religion,  and  loves  religious  titles  ! — In  fine,  it  is  a  righte- 
ousness produced  by  the  will  of  man  vvitiiout  the  humbling  pu- 
rifying influence  of  God's  Holy  Spirit! ! ! 

The  Apostle  Paul,  in  the  third  chapter  to  the  Philippians, 
gives  us  a  very  accurate  idea  of  these  two  kinds  of  righteous- 
ness. He  had  fully  experienced  both  of  them.  He  had  had  a  the- 
ological education,  and  was  an  orthodox  Pharisee!  But  what 
does  he  say  of  this  state?  He  was  a  zealous  professor,  but 
how  did  his  zeal  influence  him  ?  **  Concerning  zeal,  persecut- 
ing the  church  "  concerning  the  righteousness  of  the  Law^ 
blameless !"  It  appears  then,  that  this  righteousness  did  not 
interfere  with  a  persecuting  spirit !  This  legal  formal  righte- 
ousness, has  always  been  of  a  persecuting  species  ! — When  it 
has  temporal  power,  it  uses  it — when  it  has  none,  it  cries 

heretic,"  *♦  infidel,'*  &c.  But  how  was  it  with  him,  after  he 
had  been  changed  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Then  he 
could  say  :  **  1  count  all  things  loss  for  the  excellency  of  the 
knowledge  of  Christ,  that  I  may  win  him,  and  be  found  in  him, 
not  having  mine  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  Law,  but 
the  righteousness  which  is  of  Gud,  byjaith:  That  1  may  know 
him,  and  the  -power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellov\ship  o(  his 
suffiM'ings — being  made  comformable  to  his  death." — Here 
Paul  gives  demonstrative  evidence,  that  he  und»'rstood  the 
nature  of  «  Christ's  righteousness,"  and  the  way  in  which  the 
Christian  can  only  be  benefitted  by  the  death  of  Christ — that 
is,  by  being  made  conformable  to  it ! 

Before  I  close  this  Letter,  I  will  notice  a  few  of  *<  Paul's" 
remarks,  that  for  want  of  room  have  not  yet  been  reviewed. — 
He  says ;  <*  You  use  the  term  *  Christ,'  to  signify  a  nature,  an 
influence  from  God.'*  The  inaccui  aey  of  this  statement  must 
be  obvious  to  all  who  have  read  my  Letters.  We  use  this  term 
just  as  the  Apostles  used  it,  to  signify  **  God  manifi  st  in  the 
flesh,"  '<  God  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself  !^^ 
If  the  term  were  used  as  my  opponc^nt  uses  it,  **to  signify  God 
and  man  in  two  distinct  natures,  but  one  person  forever,"  it 
"Would  make  the  Apostles  as  absurd  theologians  as  the  Cal- 
"Vinists  !  When  the  Apostle  said  :  "  I  am  crucifii  d  wif  h  Christ,** 
"we  must  suj)pose  he  was  crucified  on  an  outward  cross  with 
Christ ! — When  he  said  :  ^Nevertheless  /  live,  yet  not  but 
59 


Christ  liveth  in  we,'*  we  must  suppose,  that  the  body  that  waa 
born  oi  the  virgin  Mary,  lived  in  him  /// — Again;  w  hen  he  said  : 
<*  Examine  yourselves,  whether  you  be  in  the  faith — know  ye 
not,  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  yoUf  except  ye  be  reprobates,'* 
we  must  understand  that  believers  are  reprobates,  unless  th& 
person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  in  thtm!  1  could  easily  quote 
fifty  passages  of  this  sort,  to  show,  that  the  inspired  ptnnien 
held  no  such  carnal  notions !  but  it  is  needless ;  **  Paul's'* 
scheme  cannot  be  supported  without  a  perversion  of  almost 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament ! ! ! 

Again  ;  **  you  may  say  every  thing  of  Moses  which  you  have 
said  of  Christ,"  What  a  desperate  state  must  my  poor  oppo- 
nent be  in,  when  he  can  descend  so  low  as  to  make  such  asser- 
tions !  Did  1  ever  say  of  Moses,  or  the  Prophets,  or  the  Apos- 
tles, that  they  were  Emmanuel  God  with  us" — **  God  manifest 
in  the  flesh" — *<  the  Saviour  of  the  world" — the  only  means  of 
salvation?" — Does  <»  Paul"  think,  like  the  ancient  heretics, 
that  a  departure  from  truth  is  lawful  in  defence  of  his  dogmas? 

Again  j  »*  you  deny  that  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  ! !  !"  This 
might  be  much  more  truly  sM  of  my  opponent,  who  aifirms, 
that  "  the  two  distinct  natures  are  one  person  forever ; — that 
Christ  is  fleshy  not  come  in  the  JieshI !  !  I  have  said  over  and 
over,  that  Christ  is  <*  God  manifest  in  the  fl^sh  ! ! !" 

In  this  way  I  could  easily  refute  his  various  calumnies,  but 
they  are  not  worth  the  time  ! 

In  liis  last  Letter,  «  Paul"  seems  much  disturbed,  that  our 
members  are  willing  to  die  wit4tmit  the  aid  of  a  priest !  He 
finds,  in  a  Philadelphia  paper,  ^n  account  of  the  last  illness  and 
death  of  a  man,  who,  for  many  years,  had  been  a  pattern  of 
piety  and  virtue, — an  active  member  of  civil  and  religious  so- 
ciety, beloved  wherever  he  was  known.  He  finds  him,  in  his 
dying  moments,  happy  and  comfortable — his  peace  made  with 
God,  and  his  mind  easy.  He  finds  him,  like  A<ldison,  express- 
ing his  religious  concern  for  survivors,  and  like  him,  showing 
them  in  what  peace  a  Christian  can  die  !" — He  finds  him 
full  of  hope  of  a  happy  immortality  ;  and  wonderful  to  relate— 
all  this  is  a  proof  that  he  was  no  Christian!  /  /  Now,  I  suppose, 
if,  like  some  hardened  sinner,  roused  by  his  fears,  he  had  re- 
counted his  sins,  with  all  the  loquacity  of  a  trembling  hypocrite, 
and  had  made  great  professions  of  repentance,  it  w^ould  have 
been  a  great  honour  to  any  religious  society  to  publish  it ! ! ! 

Upon  "  Paul's"  hypothesis,  how  disgraceful  it  was  for  the 
Apostle,  on  leaving  the  world,  <*  not  to  say  a  syllable  of  re- 
pentance for  sin,  or  a  change  of  heart;" — not  to  give  a  sin- 
gle intimation  that  he  felt  himself  a  sinner;" — instead  of  which, 
"  proclaiming  his  rectitude,"    seeming  to  enter  heaven  in  all 


467 


the  majesty  of  merit,  and  taking  eternal  glory  as  it  were  by 
right" — **  I  have  fought  a  good  fight,  1  have  finished  my  course, 
I  have  kept  the  faith.  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a 
crown  of  righteousness,  which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge, 
shall  give  me  at  that  day,  and  not  unto  me  only,  but  unto  all 
them  that  love  his  appearing."  2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8, 

*<  Blessed  are  they  tliat  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may 
have  a  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the 
gates  into  the  city.'*  Rev.  xxii.  14.  AMICUS. 

Fridat/t  December  6,  1822. 

LETTER  XLL 

ON  THE  ATONEMENT. 

  «  Then  Christ  is  dead  in  Tain."  Gal.  ii.  21. 

The  grand  question  to  be  decided  by  this  controversy,  was, 
whether  there  he  an  essential  difference  in  doctrine  between 
your  Society  and  the  Christian  world  A  question  upon  which 
there  can  be  no  longer  any  doubt.  Besides  denying  the  szt- 
preme  authority  of  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  ;  rejecting  with 
contempt  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — the  divinity  of  Jesus  as  a 
distinct  person  from  the  Father,  and  ridiculing  the  atonement! 
all  which  are  as  essential  to  Christianity  as  a  foundation  to  a 
building; — you  have,  in  your  last,  confessed  that  from  <*  the 
plan  of  salvatitm,  which  embraces  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity^ 
in  connection  with  the  atonement,^^ — -a  plan,  held,  as  you  after- 
wards acknowledge,  by  the  "  whole  Christian  world,"  you 
*f  essentially  differ  I  Thus  the  grand  object  of  this  contro- 
versy is  attained  !  You  have  been  convicted,  at  the  bar  of  the 
Christian  public,  on  the  most  unequivocal  testimony,  even  youT 
own  confession,  of  the  main  charge  which  I  have  brought ; — the 
charge  of  holding  Anti  christian  sentiments, — being  of  an 
*6  essentially  different*^  religion  from  the  Christian  church  ! 

Whether  you  or  the  Christian  world  are  right,  is  another 
question,  which  I  shall  leave  to  others  to  discuss.  To  prove  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  or  even  to  give  a  thorough  systematic 
view  of  orthodox  doctrines,  has  been  with  me  a  secoiidary  object. 
If  any,  therefore,  have  complained  of  my  not  entering  more 
deeply  into  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  divinity  of  Christ,  &c, 
and  not  noticing  all  the  flimsy  arguments  of  my  opponent,  they 
mistook  the  object  of  this  controversy.  Almost  my  only  object 
was  to  prove  you  heretics! — to  warn  my  Christian  brethren 


46S 


against  the  contaminating  influence  of  your  doctrines.  Hence 
mv  chief  d(  sign  has  been  to  draw  you  outf  and  to  obtain  a  con- 
fession  oj  your  sentiments  Hence  1  lia^ve  gone  no  further  into 
any  subject  than  was  necessary  to  conceal  my  object,  to  pre- 
serve respeiEtabilily,  and  to  arm  the  ignorant  and  unwary.  So 
far,  I  have  gained  alt  I  wislied,  and  more  than  I  anticipated  ! 

The  subject  of  atonement,  1  have  as  yet  hardly  touched. — To 
this,  therefore,  1  shall  devote  the  present  number,  afternoticing 
two  or  three  of  your  occasional  remarks  on 

THE  TRINITY  AND  DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST. 

He  still  asserts,  that  there  is  no  commonly  received  doe- 
trine  of  the  Trinit}^    — that  among  our  writers,  there  is  the 

greaiest  contrariety  of  opinion,  the  greatest  jarring  and  con- 
fusion !  '  This  will  be  perfect  news  to  Trinitarians.  They  are 
aware  of  differences  upon  other  points,  but  I  defy  Amicus"  to 
show  any  variety"  in  this.  The  individuals  with  whom 
«<  Amicus*'  says  he  has  conversed,  and  who  "  expressed  dis- 
gust" at  the  idea  of  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  cannot  be- 
long to  any  Christian  society  in  this  or  any  other  place,  or  they 
are  condemned  by  the  express  language  of  their  own  creed,  and 
ought  in  honesty  to  avow^  their  change,  leave  a  Christian  so- 
ciety, and  join  the  Unitarian  ranks. 

He  is  much  shocked  at  the  idea  of  «  God  the  Creator  being 
l>orTi  four  thousand  years  after  the  creaticm  !"  I  would  ask  him, 
whether  the  Creator  was  ever  iiicarnate  ?  and  how  far, — and 
when  ?  Does  not  the  incarnation  of  the  Deity  imply  his  uniting 
liimsclf  to  humanity  in  all  its  stages  of  existence  ?  Or  does  <*Ami- 
cus"  hold  that  God  was  not  incarnate  until  Jesus  of  JVUz^areth 
nvas  thirty  years  of  age  !  Was  not  God  in  him,  when  at  **  tw^elve 
years  of  age"  he  questioned  the  doctors  in  the  temple,  and  told 
his  parents  he  •*  must  be  about  his  Father'' s  business  ?"  And  was 
not  God  in  l)im  when  he  was  horn?  If  not,  why  was  M»e  "  child" 
that  was  born,"  the  son"  that  was  **  given."  called  Em- 
manuel," and  the  «  Mighty  God ! !"  Was  Infinite  AVisdom 
guilt)  of  a  misnomer? — You  see,  therefore,  my  brethren,  that 
the  Friends  virtually  deny  the  incarnation  ! ! !  Christ  <*  with- 
out," with  them  is  nothing ;  Christ  *'  within,"  or  a  deceitful  heart 
is  every  thing ! 

He  IS  very  anxious  for  a  definition  of  the  terrn  person  — 
as  if  he  had  not  already  had  at  least  a  half  dozen  before  him  ! 
Language  will  not  permit  a  perfect  definition  of  what  w^e  cannot 
perfectly  comprehend  5  but  in  p.  318,  he  has  quoted,  or  pre- 
tended to  quote  several  definitions  from  Waterland,  Howe, 
Owen,  Pearson  and  Bull;  eitlier  of  whieh  he  may  take  with 
their  explanation.   By  «  person,"  is  generally  understood  a 


469 


«^  distinct,  indivisible,  intelligent  agent.''  And  when  we  speak 
of  a  2'rinity  in  the  Godhead,  we  mean  three  distinct,  intelli- 
gent agents," — not  so  distincU  however,  (mind  !)  not  so  dis- 
tinct as  three  men  or  three  angels  ;  nor  so  distinct  as  to  destroy 
unity  of  essence.  But  so  *•  distinct"  that  one  has  properties 
which  do  not  belong  to  another,  (it  is  the  property  of  the  first 
persim  to  be  a  Fatlier,  and  of  the  second  to  be  a  Son,  &c.) — so 
distinct,  that  one  can  sencU  and  another  be  sent ;  one  can  make 
atonement  to  another,  and  intercede  with  another ;  in  short,  so 
distinct  as  to  justify  the  use  of  the  personal  pronouns  /,  Thou,  He, 
which  cannot  be  on  ?/o?tr  principle  of  unity.  It  is  a  distinction, 
however,  which  we  do  not  profess  to  comprehends  explain  or 
prove  farther  than  this,  that  it  exists  J  Upon  your  principle, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  tlie  Father's  sending  the  Son  ; 
the  Son  leaving  the  bosom  of  his  Father;  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
the  Comforter,  being  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son.  There 
can  be  no  such  thing  as  divine  atonement,  intercession  or  medi- 
ation between  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  ;  in  short,  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  the  Gospel,  no  such  thing  as  Christianity  I 

When  we  speak  of  Christ  as  uniting  divinity  and  humanity 
in  one  person,  we  mean  (as  well  as  words  can  express  the  mys- 
tery,) that  his  divitiity  and  humanity  were  so  closely  united  as  to 
form  but  one  "  distinct  indivisible  intelligeiit  agent,^'  so  that  without 
!iis  humanity  he  would  not  be*'  Christ,'*  and  without  his  divi- 
nity he  would  not  be  **  Christ." — Without  your  body  you  would 
not  be  a  man  :  without  your  soid  you  would  not  be  a  man  ;  yet 
when  body  and  soul  are  united,  yon  form  but  one  man,  one 

distinct  indivisible  intelligent  agent.'' 

Upon  your  principle,  Christ  was  two  persons^  or  two  "  dis- 
tinct intelligent  agents  ;"  as  man  he  w  as  one  agent, — as  God  he 
was  another!  But  rve  hold  to  such  an  indivisible  union  of  di- 
vinity and  humanity,  that  his  every  action^  and  every  suffering, 
was  the  actir)n  or  suffering  of  the  same  person,  or  same  **  intel- 
gent  agent."  We  are  not  afraid  therefore  to  say,  that  **  the 
Mighty  God,  (meaning  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,)  was 
once  a  child,"  Isa.  ix.  6.  ♦«  that  God,  the  Prince  of  life  was  kil- 
led," Acts  iii  15.  Or  that  he  who  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary 
is  "  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords,"  Rev.  xix.  16.  Because 
these  things  are  not  spoken  of  two  persons,  but  of  one  and  the 
same  person !  Your  doctrine  is  a  denial  of  the  real  divinity  of 
Christ. 

I  now  proceed  to  offer  some  remarks  on  the  doctrine  of 

ATONEMENT. 

By  atonement"  I  mean  a  satisfaction  for  sin.  And  by  the 
atonement  in  this  controversy,  I  mean    that  injinitt  satisfaction 


47# 


which  Jems  Christ  rendered  to  God  the  Father  for  the  sins  of  his 
people, 

1  liis  doctrine  of  atonement  Amicus"  has  explicitly  denied. 
He  has  said,  that  the  "  only  Gospel  atonement"  is  made  within 
us  : — that  the  js;reat  «  object  of  Clirisl's  coming,  was  to  commu' 
nicate  power  to  the  soiW^  to  overcome  sin  ; — that  the  way  adopt- 
ed by  the  "  whole  Christian  world,  who  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  regarding  the  death  of  Christ  as  the  great  atonement,  as 
having  paid  the  price  of  their  sins,  and  made  satisfaction  for 
them,"  is  a  way  mixing  light  with  darkness,  and  bringing 
Christ  into  concord  with  Belial  /" 

Now  that  such  an  atonement^  such  a  satisfaction  as  he  here 
reprobates,  is  essential  to  salvation,  and  has  actually  been 
made,  I  prove, 

1.  Because  otherwise  the  xaw  of  God  w  hich  we  have  broken 
is  not  good.  If  *<  the  Law  is  holy  and  the  commandment  holy, 
and  jusr,  and  good,"  as  is  expressly  asserted,  Rom.  vii.  12,  then 
it  ought  to  be  satisfied  and  executed.  If  the  Law  be  good  its 
fcnalty  is  good,  and  ought  to  be  inflicted  on  transgressors.  If 
then,  this  penalty  be  set  aside,  the  Law  is  dishonoured,  is  pro- 
nounced *'  not  good."  By  denying  the  necessity  of  atonement, 
therefore,  or  of  satisfaction  to  the  Law,  you  condemn  that  Law  ! 

2.  God  has  no  justice,  if  he  pardon  transgressors  without  a 
satisfaction  for  sin.  He  is  the  «  Judge  of  all  the  earth,"  and  if 
he  ever  will  **  do  right,'*  he  will  execute  his  Law  and  demand 
full  satisfaction  for  sin.  To  say  that  He  will  forgive  a  convicted 
criminal  before  his  crime  has  been  expiated  by  the  suffering 
denounced  by  the  Law,  is  to  make  him  decide  contrary  to  Law, 
justifying  whom  the  Law  condemns  ;  of  course  proving  an  unjust 
judge  !  In  denying  the  necessity  of  atonement,  you  deny  the 
justice  of  Gf>d. 

Obj.  W  justice  must  first  he  satisfied,  where  is  the  room 
for  mercy  .^"  Answer  none  ; — if  the  criminal  himself  has  endured 
the  punishment  and  penalty  : — but  if  the  judge  himself  provide 

a  surety  and  a  substitute,  there  is  mercy  in  this  provision  

Now  the  very  object  of  giving  his  Son  to  die  in  our  stead,  was 
that  he  might  be  just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  that  believeth! 
Rom.  iii.  26. 

3.  If  there  be  no  atonement,  then  the  ceremoniai  law  had 
no  meaning !  What  was  the  end  of  all  the  ancient  sacrifices 
of  lambs  and  doves  and  other  innocent  animals,  but  to  shadow 
forth  salvation  by  the  death  of  an  innocent  victim  ?  1  cannot 
quote  the  whole  book  of  Leviticus,  or  I  might  fill  this  sheet  with 
proof  of  my  position.  Readonly  the  first  five  chapters,  and 
you  will  find  passages  of  this  sort :  <<and  he  (the  sinner)  shall 
put  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  burnt  ofiering^  and  it  shall  be 


471 


accepted  for  him,  to  make  atonement  for  him,"  Lev.  i.  4> 
Again  :  »*  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  them,  and  it 
shall  he  forgiven  them,"  iv.  20,  26,  31,  35.  Again  :  '*  and  the 
priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him  before  the  Lord,  and  it 
shall  be  forgiven  him  for  any  thing  of  all  that  he  hath  done  in 
trespassing  therein,^*  vi.  7.  How  clear)>  did  these  typical  sacri- 
fices teach  the  ancient  church,  the  necessity  of  a  satisfaction 
or  atonenmit  for  sin ;  and  that  before  a  sinner  could  be  par- 
doned, an  innocent  victim  must  die  ! 

The  ceremonial  as  well  as  the  moral  Law  was  a  schoolmaster 
to  lead  sinners  to  Christ"— and  is  the  first  lesson  to  teach  them 
the  doctrine  of  atonement.  In  reference  to  these  typical  sacri- 
fices, Christ  is  called  the  lamb  of  God,  who  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world,"  John  i.  29. 

4.  Because  it  is  expressly  asserted,  that  *f  without  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission^'*''  Heb.  ix.  22.  Now  either  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  remission  of  sins,  or  an  atonement  has  preced- 
ed. For  1.  Here  is  an  atonement,  "shedding  of  blood." — 
2.  Here  is  the  necessity  of  atonement,  "  without  shedding  of 
blood  is  no  remissionJ^  3.  It  is  implied  that  after  such  atonement, 
there  is  <*  remission."  Now  4.  As  Christ  is  now  ♦*  exalted  a 
Prince  and  a  Saviour  to  giv  e  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,'* 
Acts  v.  31,  it  follows  there  has  been  an  atonemeiit  made, 

5.  If  there  be  no  need  of  an  atonement,  the  sufferings  of 
CHRIST  were  unnecessary  and  unaccountable  !  I  suppose  you  will 
grant  he  was  a  sinless  person,  holy,  harmless,  undefiled  and 
separate  from  sinners."  Why  then  did  he  suffer? — and  suffer 
death,  which  is  the  wages  of  sin?'' — Why  that  agony  and 
bloody  sweat? — that  «*  strong  crying  and  tears"  in  the  garden 
of  Gethsemnnc  !  Was  he  afraid  of  death, — or  did  he  suffer 
more  than  others?  Had  he  less  fortitude  than  Peter^  who  was 
not  only  willing  to  be  crucified,  but  to  be  crucified  with  his  head 
downwards  !  Many  of  his  disciples  went  si7iging  to  the  flames, 
and  with  Joy  met  devouring  lions  !  Where  was  then  our  Sa- 
viour's fortitude?  or  was  he  enduring  more  than  ordinary  suf- 
fering? If  so,  why  thus  agonized  and  overwhelmf^d  ?  It  was 
not  for  his  own  sins,  for  he  had  none  ; — but  tor  the  sins  of  his 
people.  He  himself  explains  the  cause  of  his  agonies  on  that 
awful  night :  «*  this  is  my  body  broken  for  you  ;  this  is  my  blood 
shed  f(»r  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Or  as  he  had 
said  before.  Matt.  xx.  28  :  «*The  son  of  man  is  come  to  give 
his  life  a  RANSOM  for  many."  If  there  be  no  need  of  an 
at(mement,  then  what  the  Apostle  shuddered  to  think  of  is  true : 

«  CHRIST  IS  DEAD  IN  VAIN  !"  Gal.  ii.  21. 

6.  You  entirpl>  annul  his  office  of  a  PRIEST.  The  Saviour 
promised  to  the  world,  was  to  bear  a  three-fold  office  of  a  Pro- 


472 


phet,  of  a  Priest- and  of  a  King.  You  acknowledge  him  (in 
part)  as  a  Prophet,  sent  to  be  a  light"  to  the  world ;  and  as 
a  King,  you  profess  to  look  to  him,  to  subject  your  wills  to  his 
will."  But  if  you  deny  his  atonement,  you  den}'  his  priestly 
office  altogether.  That  he  was  a  Priest  is  evident,  from  Heb. 
viii.  1. :  •*  We  have  an  High  Friest  who  is  set  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  in  the  heavens."  Now  the  office  of  a  priest  is 
to  offer  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  make  intercession  for  sinners.  As 
it  is  written  :  Every  high  priest  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and 
sacrifices:  Wherefore,  it  is  necessary  that  this  man,  (Jesus 
Clirist)  have  somewhat  also  to  offer."  viii.  3.  But  what  did  he 
offers  '<  But  Christ  being  come  an  High  Priest  of  good  things 
to  come,  neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own 
blood,  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtained 
eternal  redemption  for  us."  ix.  11,  12.  And  having  an  un- 
changeable priesthood,"  he  is  "  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost 
ail  who  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make 
intercession  for  them."  vii  25,  Thus,  by  denying  the  atone- 
ment, you  annul  the  Saviour's  office  of  a  Priest,  and  forget  his 
chief  object  in  visiting  this  world. 

7.  The  reality  of  an  atonement  is  proved  by  all  those  passa- 
ges which  speak  of  his  dying  for  us  :  Rom.  v.  6,  8.  «  In  due 
time  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly  and  while  we  were  yet  sin- 
ners Christ  died  for  ws."  To  die  for  a  person  in  these  passages, 
is  to  die  in  his  stead,  that  he  may  not  die.  Thus  in  the  7th 
verse  :  Scarcely /or  a  righteous  man  will  one  die,"  i.  e.  to  save 
a  righteous  man  from  death.  His  dying  for  us,  therefore,  proves 
a  substitution,  a  vicarious  atonement. 

8.  The  liiid  chapter  of  Isaiah,  proves  'an  atonement,  verse  6  r 
He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions;  he  was  bruised  for 

our  iniquities  ;  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him  ; 
and  by  his  stripes  are  we  healed.  All  we  like  sheep  had  gone 
astray,  and  the  Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  For  the 
transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken."  If  thcvSe  passa- 
ges do  not  prove  that  the  object  of  Christ's  sufferings  was  to 
atone  for  our  sins,  the  doctrine  cannot  be  taught  in  words. 

9.  Those  passages  which  speak  of  his  purchasing  and  redeem- 
ing  us,  prove  an  atonement,  1  Cor.  vi.  20 :  **  Ye  are  bought 
with  a  price."  Acts  xx.  28  :  "  He  purchased  the  church  with 
his  own  blood,^^  1  Pet,  i.  18 :  Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that 
ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and 
gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ."  Mat.  xx.  28.  «  The 
Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many."  And 
the  whole  church  in  heaven  acknowledges,  "  Thou  wast  slain 
and  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,^^ — ^Note  1.  Here  is  a 
redemption^  a  ransom^  a  price  which  Christ  paid  for  us.  2.  Thafr 


473 


ransom  or  price  was  his  blood.  And  yet  you  deny  an  Atone  ^ 
inent ! 

10.  His  bearing  our  sins,  proves  an  atonement.  Isaiah  liii. 
11, 12  :  *•  He  shall  bear  their  iniquities  — and  again  :  <*  he  bare 
the  sin  of  viany,"  Whicli  is  echoed  hy  the  Apostle  Peter : 
«  Who  his  own  self  bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree." 
1  Peter  ii.  2i<.  Objection  :  <*  Christ  bears  away  our  sins,  by  re- 
moving them,  by  his  Spirits  from  our  hearts,'^  Answer :  No ; 
for  1.  To  bear  is  not  to  "  bear  away,"  but  to  suffer  the  pun- 
ishment due  to  sin.  2.  Note  how  he  bears  our  sins,  not  in  our 
hearts,  but  "  in  his  own  body.^'  3.  The  place  and  time  in  whicli 
he  bears  our  sins, — not  hereafter,  but  ^«  on  the  tree^'  of  crucifix- 
ion— that  is  :     eighteen  hundred  years  ago." 

11.  His  being  made  sin  for  us,  proves  an  atonement,  2  Cor, 
V.  21 :  He  ivho  knexv  no  sin  was  made  sin  (or  a  sin  offering) 
for  us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,*' 
Here  every  word  is  full  of  meaning.  Note  1.  His  personal  in- 
nocence; <*  he  knew  no  sin."  2.  He  was  treated  as  a  sinner; 
**  he  was  made  sin."  3.  His  substitution  in  our  stead  ;  he 
was  made  sin  for  us,'*  4.  His  death  is  the  means  of  our  righte- 
ousness, **that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  iu 
him."  He  that  can  get  over  this  without  admitting  an  atone- 
ment, must  be  a  good  torturer  of  Scripture  ! 

12.  Our  being  clearised  by  his  blood,  is  another  proof  of  an 
atonement,  1  John  i.  7 :  *«  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son 
cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,**  Rev.  i.  5:  "  Unto  Him  that  loved  us 
and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood."  And  vii.  14. : 
"  These  are  they  who  have  washed  their  robes  and  made  them 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,**  The  "  blood  of  the  Lamb"  is 
the  atonement. 

13.  His  being  made  a  curse  for  its,  is  another  argument ;  Gal. 
iii.  13  :  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  Law,  being 
made  a  curse  for  us,**  Note  1.  We  were  under  a  curse,  "  the 
curse  of  the  Law."  2.  Christ  hath  removed  this  curse,  «  hath 
redeemed  us."  3.  The  manner  in  wliich  this  curse  was  remov- 
ed,— not  by  "subjecting  our  wills,"  or  *<  working  in  us  a  sub- 
stantial righteousness  of  heart  and  life,"  but  by  being  made 
a  cursefor  us.**  And  if  you  say  this  curse  is  yet  to  be  borne  when 
we  are  converted  j  I  answer,  the  same  text  tells  you  it  was 
borne  when  he  was  <<  hanging  on  the  tree." 

14.  That  a  sacrifice  for  si7i  is  essential  to  salvaticm,  proves  the 
necessity  of  atonement.  It  is  given  as  a  reason  why  certain 
sinners  cannot  be  saved,  that  there  remaineth  no  more  sacri- 
fice for  si/i."  Heb.  x.  26.  Now,  if  a  sacrifice  for  sin  be  not 
essential  to  salvation,  where  is  the  force  of  this  passage? 

1.5.  Our  salvation  is  attributed  to  Christ's  once  offering  np 
GO 


474 


himself  in  sacrifice.  Read  Hebrews  ix.  and  x. :  ^<  Now  in  the 
end  of  the  worlu,  hath  lie  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacri* 
fice  of  himstlj  and  again :  *»  Clirist  was  once  offered  to  bear 
the  sins  oj'  many,^^  ix.  26,  28.  And  again  ;  Hf  b.  x.  14  :  •*  By 
his  one  offering,  he  hath  forever  perfected  tliem  that  are  sanctifi- 
ed." JNote,  there  is  no  need  of  his  making  atonement  every 
year,  and  every  day  and  hour,  as  your  system  supposes ;  but 
by  one  offering,^^  he  hath  *»  forever  perfected'*  those  who  be- 
lieve in  him. 

16.  The  atonement  was  the  first  grand  article  of  the  Gospel 
which  the  Apostle  of  the  G.  ntiles  preached.  1  Cor.  xv.  3  :  *•  By 
which  also  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory  what  1  preach- 
ed unto  you;  for  I  delivered  iinto  you  first  or  all,  thai  which 
Ireceived,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins,  according  to  the 
Scriptures,"  Now,  what  he  made  **  first  of  ail,"  you  put  last 
of  ail!  He  determined  "  not  to  know  any  thing  else  than  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucifed  you  give  every  thing  else  the  pre- 
ference !  He  determined,  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory  save 
in  the  cross  of  Christ  ;"7ou  say  :  **  God  forbid  that  I  should 
believe  a  doctrine  which  mixes  light  with  darkness^  and  brings 
Christ  into  concord  with  Belial  But  all  this  is  easy  to  account 
for:  "The  preaching  of  the  CROSS  is  to  them  that  perish, 
foolishness,  but  unto  us  who  are  saved,  it  is  the  power  of  God 
and  the  wisdom  of  God."  1  Cor.  i.  IS. 

And  now  I  appeal  to  the  Christian  community,  and  to  those 
who  love  the  Bible,  who  trust  in  the  "  great  atonement,"  who 
hope  for  salvation  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  mourn  when 
heresy  is  abroad,  and  who  long  for  the  salvation  of  all  man- 
kind,— ought  doctrines  which  undermine  the  foundation,  and 
overturn  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity,  to  be  countenanced 
by  you,  as  they  are,  in  this  r«  gion  I  Have  you  no  regard  to  tiie 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity — the  divinity  of  Christ — the  great 
atonement — and  justification  by  faith  ?  Can  you  sit  still,  and 
see  the  Bible  set  aside  as  more  deceitful  than  the  heart?  Are 
you  willing  to  see  the  ordinances  of  Christ's  house  despised, 
the  Sabbath  day  profaned,  and  the  cause  of  Bible  and  mission- 
ary benevolence  opposed  ?  You  are  sending  the  Gospel  to  the 
heathen  ;  you  do  well ; — you  are  labouring  to  enlighten  the  be- 
nighted in  yonr  own  western  territory  ;  you  do  well.  But  why 
neglect  a  large  body  of  lost  souls  n<*ar  home  ?  Why  support, 
countenance  urn] flatter  a  society  which  corrupts  your  children 
and  friends,  preaches  down  Christianity,  and  labours  to  diffuse 
the  principles  of  deism  !   So  long  as  Cliristians  call  them 

Christians,"  you  confirm  them  in  their  delilsion,  you  assist  in 
deceiving  your  children,  who  will  be  less  on  their  guard  against 
those  whom  you  profess  to  esteem !  What  then  should  you  do  ? — 


475 


Deny  them  the  Christian  name,  until  they  profess  Christian  doc- 
trine ;  labour  to  diffuse  a  knowledge  of  the  Bible,  and  to  excite 
a  spirit  of  inquiry  among  them, — make  them  the  subject  of  your 
private  and  your  public  prayers; — persuade  them  to  attend 
Christian  sanctuaries  where  the  Gospel  is  preached  ; — warn 
them  of  the  errors  of  their  teachers  ;  in  short,  make  use  of 
every  Scriptural  means  to  bring  them  to  a  knowledge  of  salva- 
tion ! 

And  now,  my  dear  friends,  I  have  nothing  against  you  as 
men.  Your  persons  I  love,  your  virtues  I  admire,  and  the  sal- 
vation of  your  souls  is  my  daily  petition.  If  the  Bible  be  true, 
you  are  certainly  wrong ;  and  if  there  be  no  Saviour  but  Christ, 
you  must  be  converted  or  lost !  PAUL. 

Sixth-day,  12th  mo.  13,  182^. 

LETTER  XLL 

^<  Unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
God;  but  to  others  in  parables;  thai  seeing  they  might  not  see, 
and  hearing  they  might  not  understand,*^  Luke  viii.  10, 

The  celebrated  Origen,  who  flourished  about  two  hundred 
years  after  Christ,  and  whose  piety  and  firmness  in  the  Chris- 
tian cause  were  never  disputed,  has  been  accused  of  interpret- 
ing the  Bible  in  a  mystical  manner!  It  is,"  said  he,  taught 
that  the  Scriptures  were  in  many  places  void  of  sense,  if  taken 
according  to  their  literal  import;  and,  that  the  true  meaning 
of  the  sacred  Writings,  was  to  be  sought  in  a  hidden  or  inter- 
nal sense,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  things  treated  of^^  How 
far  the  censures  passed  upon  him,  in  succeeding  ages,  when 
the  church  bad  fallen  into  the  trammels  of  a  pretended  ortho- 
doxy— when,  in  defiance  of  reason,  the  grossest  and  most  car- 
nal interpretation  of  the  inspired  records,  was  adopted  and 
forced  upon  mankind,  under  pain*  of  death ; — I  say,  how  far 
these  censures  were  just  or  reasonable,  it  is  perhaps  at  this 
time  impossible  to  determine.  To  his  avowed  enemies  we  are 
indebted  for  much  of  our  information  respecting  the  character 
of  Origen  :  and  the  Society  I  advocate  have  good  reason  to 
knows  how  little  dependance  is  to  be  placed  upon  the  statements 
of  those,  who,  from  bigotry  or  superstition  have  ranged  them- 
selves in  opposition  to  individuals  or  societies  that  cannot  con- 
form to  their  Creed  !  One  thing  however  is  certain,  that  on 
the  partial  reformation  from  popery  by  the  Protestants,  those 
who  stiled  themselves  the    orthodox,"  were  forced,  in  some 


^78 


instances,  to  resort  to  a  figurative  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
in  order  to  sustain  their  opinions  !  TJuis,  when  the  Catholics, 
in  defence  of  transubstantiatioiif  urged  the  literal  meaning  of 
the  text:  <*  This  is  my  body,'*  the  Uei'ormers  contended,  that 
it  could  not  be  taken  literally.— When  the  former  quoted  the 
passage:  "This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is 
shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  the  latter  justly  plead 
for  a  figurative  interpretation  of  it !  They  boldly  declared, 
that  though  our  Lord  had  positively  affirmed,  that  the  bread 
was  his  body,  and  the  cup  his  blood,  yet  he  only  meant,  they 
were  so  in  a  figurative  sense  / 

Now,  so  far  the  Reformers  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  Ori- 
CEN  ! — so  Jar  they  virtually  declared,  that  <•  the  Scriptures 
were,  in  some  places,  void  of  sense,  if  taken  according  to  their 
literal  import !"  And,  so  far  every  Protestant  applauds  their 
sentiment !  If  it  w  ere  necessary,  I  could  cite  many  cases  of 
this  kind,  to  show,  that  the  self-stiled  orthodox,  have  frequent- 
ly done  the  very  thing  for  which  they  have  censured  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  pious  men  of  his  age — one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished names  on  the  page  of  Ecclesiastical  History !  The 
truth  is,  and  no  Christian  will  deny  it,  that  a  spiritual  or  inter- 
nal sense,  is  intended  by  many  passages  of  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
where,  by  taking  them  in  a  literal  or  external  sense,  w^e  should 
involve  our  Lord  himself,  and  the  inspired  penmen,  in  the  gros- 
sest absurdity. 

Christ  expressly  declared  to  the  Jews  :  ^*  Except  ye  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you : 
Whoso  eateth  my  fiesh,  and  drinkcth  my  blood,  hath  eternal  life; 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day:  For  my  flesh  is  meat  in- 
deed, and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed.^^  John  vi.  53,  54,  55.  On 
this  passage  commentators  differ  widely  ;  some  explaining  it 
oneway,  and  some  another;  but  all  (excepting  perhaps  the 
E-oman  Catholics)  agree,  that  it  must  have  a  figurative  mean- 
ing !  This  being  conceded,  I  can  see  no  reason,  why  the  So- 
ciety of  which  I  am  a  member,  have  not,  on  the  broad  ground 
of  Christian  equality,  as  good  a  right  to  judge  of  its  meaning 
as  any  other ' — Nor,  can  I  see  any  reason  why  those,  whom 
the  "mother  church'*  caWed  ^^blasphemous  heretics,^'  but  who 
have  now  the  modesty  to  arrogate  to  themselves  the  exclusive 
title  of  «  orthodox  Christians,'^  should  be  invested  with  the  sole 
privilege  of  expounding  this  text ! ! !  Where,  I  would  ask, 
did  these  presumptuous  sectaries  acquire  this  right  ?  No  one 
who  is  unwilling  to  commit  his  soul  for  safe  keeping,  into  the 
hands  of  a  priest,  will  find  any  difficulty  to  answer  this  ques- 
tion ! ! ! 

But  whatever  authority  others  may  have  for  their  interpre- 


477 


tatioTi  of  this  text,  on  the  true  meaning  of  which  so  much  de- 
pends, 7ve  claim  the  authority  of  Christ  himself  for  our  under- 
standing of  it !  Our  Lord  has  given  us  the  key  to  unh)ck  its 
meaning,  and  unfold  its  heavenly  treasures !  and  not  only  to 
nnfold  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  hut  of  many  others  of  a 
similar  nature  ! 

Except  ye  eat  the  Jlesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  It  appears  by  the  context,  that 
many  of  the  "  orthodox"  of  that  day,  interpreting  these  words 
(as  many  now  understand  the  Scriptures)  in  a  literal  and 
logical  sense,"  were  highly  "  offended,''  and  murmured  at 
this  saying  To  the  right  understanding  of  Gospel  truth,  our 
Lord's  reply  is  one  of  the  most  important  passages  on  record  / 
It  is  THE  SPIRIT  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing  : 
the  words  that  1  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are 
life."  John  vi.  63. 

Here  we  are  taught  from  the  lip  of  Truth,  the  true  meaning  of 
the  ''flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,"  so  frequently  spoken  of  by  our 
Lord,  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles !  The  only  flesh  and  blood 
that  quickeneth — that  giveth  life  to  the  soul,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  ! 
<<It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth.'' — No  other  power  can  raise 
the  dead  sinner  to  life— break  down  the  partition  wall  of  sin, 
and  make  an  atonement  between  God  and  the  soul !  «  The 
flesh  profiteth  nothing."  What  flesh  profiteth  nothing?  Christ 
answers  the  question  !  The  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man.'*  And 
by  a  parity  of  reasoning,  his  outward  material  blood,  must  be 
equally  unprofitable  !  and  for  a  very  plain  reason ;  because 
elementary  flesh  and  blood  are  not  applicable  to  the  soul ! — 
there  is  no  analogy  between  material  flesh  and  blood,  and  the 
immaterial  nature  of  an  immortal  spirit !  Elementary  substances 
may  nourish  the  body — nothing  inferior  to  spiritual  food  can  sus- 
tain the  life  of  the  soul ! !  ! 

By  this  mode  of  interpretation,  our  Lord  has  given  us  a  key 
to  unlock  the  meaning  of  many  passages  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
•which  otherwise  admit  of  no  rational  explanation.  As  the 
subject  is  of  primary  importance,  and  immediately  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  I  will  spend  a  few  minutes 
in  illustrating  my  views. 

In  the  first  place,  it  will  be  conceded  by  all,  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  is  absolutely  necessary  to  purify  us  from  sin,  and  pre- 
pare us  for  admission  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  that  every 
soul  must  be  washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  before  it  can  be 
fitted  for  immortal  blessedness  !  Now  if  we  understand  by  the 
blood  of  Christ  his  outward  material  blood,  this  is  impossible  ? 
No  man  was  ever  washed  in  this  blood  ! 

Blood  is  the  life  of  animal  nature,  and  under  the  Mosaic  dis- 


4-78 


pensatioii,  was  used  as  a  type  or  figure  of  the  divine  life .' 
The  Apostle  speaking  of  "  the  blood  of  the  Testament,  which 
God  had  enjoined  on  the  Jews  Heb.  ix.  20,  kc.  says  :  **almost 
all  things  are  by  the  Law  purged  with  blood  ;  and  without  shed- 
ding of  blood  is  no  remission."  Hence  he  argues,  that  as  out- 
ivard  blood  was  necessary  for  the  remission  of  legal  sins,  so  a 
«  belter  sacrifice"  than  outward  blood,  was  necessary  for  the 
remission  of  sins  under  the  "^ew  Covenant."  The  animals 
offered  as  an  atonement  under  the  Law,  were  typical  of  Christ, 
the  true  Gospel  atonement.  As  without  the  shedding  of  their 
blood  there  was  no  remission  of  legal  sins — so  without  the  pour- 
ing out  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (the  spiritual  blood  of  Christ)  there 
is  no  remission  of  sins  under  the  Gospel.   See  Acts  ii.  17. 

Secondly.  The  blood  of  Christ"  as  an  active  agent,  or 
cause  of  redemption  and  reconciliation  with  God,  is  described 
as  an  operative^  effeciive  principle;  thus  it  is  said  :  Heb.  ix.  14 ; 
1st.  To  **  piirge  the  conscience  from  dead  words,  to  serve  the 
living  God."  2nd.  <*  To  cleanse  from  all  sin,"  1  John  i.  7. 
Sd.  **  To  redeem  us  to  God,"  Rev.  v.  9.  4th.  To  wash  the  robes 
of  the  saints,  and  make  them  wAife,"  Rev.  vii.  14.  Now  it  is 
impossible  that  material  blood  can  do  this  for  the  soul !  But  by 
our  Lord's  explanation  of  the  term,  these  passages  are  per- 
fectly plain,  and  truly  descriptive  of  the  means  of  redemption  ! 
It  is  therefore  clear,  that  they  refer  us  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
As  material  blood,  the  atonement  for  legal  sins — Material  water ^ 
the  means  of  external  purijication — material Jire,  that  separates 
the  pure  gold  from  its  dross,  are  all  frequently  used  in  the 
sacred  Writings,  as  symbols  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'*  so  the  sprink- 
ling of  blood,  the  washing  of  water,  the  baptism  of  fire,  are  all 
descriptive  of  the  purifying,  cleansing  operation  of  the  same 
Divine  power  in  the  work  of  man's  redemption. 

Thirdly.  That  the  salvation  of  the  soul  is  effected,  not  by 
that  which  Christ  did  for  us  in  his  outward  and  temporary 
manifestation  to  the  Jews  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ;  not  by 
any  imputation  of  his  merits  or  righteousness,  may  easily  be 
demonstrated  from  many  parts  of  the  inspired  Writings; 
I  will  quote  a  few  of  them :  And  1st,  "  Except  ye  be  convert- 
ed, and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  Matt.  viii.  3.  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  John  iii.  3.  »<  Ac- 
cording to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration 
Siwd  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'*  Tit.  iii.  5.  «  The  grace  of  God, 
that  bringeth  salvation,  hath  appeared  unto  all  men,  teaching  U8, 
that  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  so- 
berly, righter)usly,  and  Godly  ;"  Tit.  ii.  11,  12.  «  For  by  grace 
are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is 


479 


the  gift  of  God.'*'  Epli.  ii.  8.  I  could  "easily  fill  my  paper  with 
similar  quotations,  all  going  to  prove,  that  salvation  is  a  work 
effected  in  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  an  actual  redemption 
from  the  captivity  of  sin  ;  a  release  from  the  bondage  of  cor- 
ruption ;  a  deliverance  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  trans- 
lation of  the  soul  into  the  kingdom  or  government  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  is  a  kingdom  of  Divine  life  and  light 

I  am  aware,  a  very  different  view  of  the  Scripture  plan  of 
salvation  has  been  adopted  by  various  professors  of  the  Chris- 
tian name.  A  view,  as  derogatory  to  the  character  of  a  just 
and  merciful  God,  as  it  is  shocking  to  reason  and  contradictory 
to  the  express  language  of  the  inspired  penmen  !  We  are  told, 
that  Christ,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself, 
hath  fully  satiified  the  justice  of  Grod,  and  paid  the  price  of  our 
redemption,'' — so  that  in  his  obedience  and  sacrifice,  there  is  an 

infinite  superabundance  of  righteousness  and  merit — that 
this  store  of  merits  is  to  be  effectually  applied,  and  communicated 
to  a  certain  number  ormankind,  w  ho  were  eternally  predesti- 
nated and  foreordained  to  salvation  ! — that  "  this  number  is  so 
certain,  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  di- 
minished'-— and  the  rest  are  sent  into  everlasting  torment,  for 
what  they  could  not  possibly  avoid  \ ! ! 

This  plan  we  reject,  as  grossly  injurious  to  the  amiable  and  glo- 
rious character  of  the  Deity  ! — and  directly  contradicted  by  many 
Scripture  testimonies  !  In  the  first  place,  the  doctrine  oi paying 
a  price  to  God  for  our  redemption,  to  satisfy  his  offended  justice, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  any  part  of  the  Bible ;  the  word  "  satis- 
faction" does  not  once  occur  in  the  New  Testament !  Our  Lord's 
mission  to  mankind,  was  the  pure  effect  of  divine  compassion  : 
«  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him,  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life."  John  iii.  16. — That  Christ,  by  his  obedience, 
laid  up  an  infinite  magazine  of  merits,  to  be  applied  in  succeed- 
ing ages  to  a  favoured  few, — to  be  dealt  out  in  morsels  to  those 
already  predestinated  to  salvation,  is  the  mere  invention  of  be- 
nighted men,  unsupported  by  a  single  Scriptural  text.  The 
word  <•  merits"  is  not  found  in  the  sacred  records.  The  scheme 
it  supports  was  contrived  by  Anti-christ,  in  the  dark  ages  of 
Romish  superstition  ;  and  was  a  source  of  immense  profit  to  the 
clergy,  who  kept  the  magazine  of  merits,  and  used  to  retail 
them  as  a  license  to  commit  sin,  or  as  a  kind  of  plaster  for  guilty 
consciences !  !  !  When  Luther  and  his  fellow-labourers  suc- 
ceeded in  their  opposition  to  the  church  of  Rome,  they  took  the 
key  of  this  magazine  from  the  clergy,  and  appointed  the  third 
person  of  their  Trinity  its  keeper,  who  now  dispenses  its  im- 
portant contents  to  the  favourites  of  heaven,  and  suffers  the  rest 


480 


to  tumble  into  the  bottomless  pit,  without  remedy  !  That  such 
a  belief  as  this,  should  be  entertained  in  days  of  gross  igno- 
rance and  superstition,  when  every  priest  was  deemed  an  ora- 
cle, and  every  man  bound  to  assent  to  this  creed,  under  pain  of 
death  or  torture,  is  not  very  marvellous ! — but  that  it  should 
find  advocates  in  the  present  day,  when  every  man  may  read 
his  Bible,  and  when  there  is  neither  a  gibbet,  nor  inquisition  in 
our  land,  is  truly  astonishing  ! ! ! 

The  great  object  of  my  opponent  in  commencing  and  contin- 
uing the  present  controversy,  he  iias  at  length  developed — an 
object  that  has  always  been  very  manifest  to  all  but  himself! 
No  one,  having  a  moderate  share  of  discernment,  could  ever 
doubt  the  nature  of  his  motives. — We  now  see  the  cause  of  iiis 
long  **  prayers,  and  anxious  inquiry  after  duty  ! ! !"  Placed  by 
the  goodness  of  Providence,  out  of  the  reach  of  secular  power 
in  combination  with  clerical  intolerance,  it  is  truly  amusing  to 
see  the  various  little  manoeuvres  of  the  priesthood,  to  increase 
their  influence,  and  consequently  to  augment  their  funds !  ! ! 
«  Paul,"  after  "  anxious  inquiry,"  found  it  his  "  duty"  to 
prove  us  "heretics;"  and  having,  with  great  dexterity,  pass- 
ed over  the  great  majority  of  my  arguments,  he  grasps  the 
conclusion,  and  fixes  his  terrible  seal  on  it ! ! ! — and  what  then  ? 
Why,  then  he  calls  on  his  Christian  brethren"  to  withdraw 
their  <*  support"  and  "esteem"  from  us — to  deny  us  the  Chris- 
tian name,  until  we  profess  Christian  "  doctrine ;"  that  is,  the 
doctrine  of  TRITHEISM,  according  to  his  explanation  of  it—* 
and  of  course,  until  we  profess  this  doctrine, — these  "  bre- 
thren" are  invited  to  join  those  who  do  profess  it! — <«  This  he 
has  said  because  he  had  the  bag,  and  bare  what  was  put  there- 
in." John  xii.  6. 

As  for  our  "  Christian  brethren"  of  all  religious  societies,  I 
trust  we  justly  value  their  "  csieem,"  and  love  them  as  cordially 
as  any  people  ;  but  we  do  not  ask  their  "  supporV^ — we  do  not 
even  desire  it !  It  is  enough  for  us,  if  we  are  supported  by  the 
hand  of  a  gracious  Providence,  as  we  have  hitherto  been, 

through  evil  report  and  good  report ;  as  deceivers,  and  yet 
true ;  as  unknown,  and  yet  well  known ;  as  dying,  and  behold 
we  live."  2  Cor.  vi.  8,  9.  Can  "  Paul"  have  the  vanity  to 
suppose,  that  after  standing  against  the  united  power  of  the 
clergy,  when  armed  with  all  the  terrors  of  the  civil  law,  and 
exercising  all  the  cruelty  of  a  Nero  on  an  innocent  unoffending 
people,  we  can  be  in  the  least  injured  by  the  cry  of  *«  heretics 
Has  "the  rain  descended,  have  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds 
blown,  and  beat  upon  our  house,  and  it  fell  not" — and  is  it  now 
to  fall  by  the  breath  of  a  moth  !  It  is  impossible  !  Tlie  charac- 
ter of  the  people  he  has  attacked  has  been  too  long  tested,  to  be 


4Si 


shaken  by  his  puny  efforts !  The  character  of  our  assailant  and 
his  doctrines,  has  been  too  clearly  exhibited,  to  shake  any  thing 
that  stands  on  the  ground  of  deliberate  reflection. 

That  ♦<  Paul"  did  not  design  to  enter  deeply  into  orthodox 
doctrines,'*''  was  very  prudent  in  iiim  !  His  shyness  on  this  point, 
has  been  very  manifest  from  the  commencement !  He  would 
have  acted  more  discreetly,  if  he  had  not  sometimes  lost  sight  of 
his  design  !  The  truth  is,  they  will  not  bear  it ;  they  have 
already  been  too  <»  deeply'*  examined.  Investigation  is  their 
worst  enemy  /    Like  vice  they  are 

"  a  monster  of  such  hideous  mien, 

That  to  be  hated,  need  but  to  be  seen." 

The  division  of  the  "  One  God"  into  three," — the  death  of 
a  merciful  Creator  to  satisfy  his  unmerciful  Father — the  justifi^ 
cation  of  wicked  men  by  a  nominal  righteousness — the  eternal 
punishment  of  millions  by  an  "  eternal  decree," — liuiiting  the 
mercy  of  God  to  a  small  number  of  mankind — making  JEHO- 
VAH the  author  and  instigator  of  sin— sprinkling  a  little  water 
in  the  face  <•  a  seal  of  the  new  covenant" — eating  bread  and 
wine  a  badge  of  Christianity,"  are  all  such  gross  absurdities, 
that  unprejudiced  Christians  must  reject  them.  They  are 
doctrines  adapted  to  the  meredian  of  Rome  in  her  darkest 
days;  but  illy  suited  to  a  country,  where  men  are  at  liberty 
to  think,  and  where  there  is  neither  an  Ecclesiastical  courts  nor 
inquisitonal  dungeon  !  !  I 

1  will  now  recur  to  some  of  my  opponent's  arguments  to 
prove  that  God  cannot  pardon  sin,  unless  he  receive  some 
compensation  by  way  of  satisfaction.  I  will  at  present  pass 
over  the  absurdity  of  this  doctrine,  which  supposes  the  death 
of  our  Creator  to  make  satisfaction  to  himself — which  supposes 
one  part  of  the  Deity  so  inflexible,  that  nothing  less  than  the 
murder  of  another  of  his  parts  can  appease  him  ! — -which  sup- 
poses that  the  second  and  third  persons  of  their  three-fold  Di- 
vinity, though  as  much  Gods  as  the  first,  should  need  no  satis- 
faction at  all !  All  those,  and  many  more  irrational  conse- 
quences of  the  Trinitarian  scheme,  will  naturally  occur  to  the 
intelligent  reader. 

1st.  He  says  :  «  If  the  Law  be  good,  the  penalty  \%^ooi\,  and 
ought  to  be  inflicted  on  transgressors."  Now  if  this  argument 
be  good,  God  ought  to  have  destroyed  the  Ninevites  at  the  end 
of  forty  days,  according  to  the  prediction  of  Jonah.  When 
that  great  city  repented  and  "turned  every  one  from  his  evil 
way,"  God  "  dishonoured  his  own  Law," — he  **  denied  liis  own 
justice,"  by  forgiving  them ! !  !    My  opponent  tells  us,  that 

to  say  God  will  forgive  a  convicted  criminal,  before  his  crhm 
61 


482 


has  been  expiated,  by  the  suffering  denounced  by  the  Law,  is 
to  make  him  decidt  contrary  to  Law;  justifying  whom  the  Law 
condems,  oj course  proving  an  unjust  Judge  /'>  Thus  my  learned 
opponent  has  pronounced  God  an  "unjust  Judge;'*  because 
when  he  pardoned  the  repenting  Ninevites,  refusing  to  destroy 
half  a  million  of  people,  he  acted  contrary  to  Law  ! ! !"  For- 
giveiiess  then  is  contrary  to  God^s  Law  !  I ! 

According  to  this  doctrine ;  when  our  Lord  said  :  "  If  thy 
brother  trespass  against  thee  seven  times  in  a  day,  and  seven 
times  in  a  day  turn  again  to  thee,  saying  I  repent^  thou  shalt 
forgive  him,"  he  only  meant,  that  if  the  trespasser  paid  full 
damages  for  his  trespasses,  we  should  kindly  forgive  him ! ! ! 
Again ;  when  he  taught  his  disciples  to  pray  to  God,  saying  : 

furgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors,"  Matt.  v.  12, 
he  only  meant  to  teach,  that  we  should  forgive  our  debtors, 
after  they  had  paid  us,  and  taken  a  receipt  in  full !  ! ! 

2.  Again  he  tells  us  ;  "  If  there  be  no  atonement,  then  the 
Ceremonial  Law  had  no  meaning."  To  this  position  I  freely 
subscribe.  1  have  never  said  there  is  no  atonement."  On 
the  contrary,  I  have  plead  for  a  real,  effectual  atonement !  for 
a  divine  power  that  really  cleanses  the  soul  from  sin,  and  brings 
it  into  reconciliation  with  God.  The  Ceremonial  Law  was 
an  outward  law,  "  having,"  as  the  Apostle  says,  *<  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come."  Heb.  x.  1.  Legal  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices are  called  ihadows,  in  opposition  to  spiritual  offerings ! 
Now  if  the  material  blood,  which  by  sprinkling  it  on  the  out- 
ward altar  made  an  atonement  for  legal  sins,  were  a  type  of 
the  material  blood  of  Christ,  then  we  must  conclude,  that  one 
material  substance  was  a  type  for  another  material  substance ; 
which  would  destroy  the  relation  between  type  and  antitype ! 
The  outward  temple  was  a  type  of  the  true  Christian,  whom  the 
Apostle  tells  us,  is  a  "  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,'*  1  Cor.  vi. 
9.  The  outward  altar  was  a  type  of  the  altar  of  the  heart. — 
The  incense  arising  from  the  Jewish  altar  was  a  type  of  the 
prayers  of  the  saints,  ascending  from  God's  spiritual  altar,  a 
purified  heart !  Rev.  viii.  4.  In  like  manner,  «  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  which,  sprink- 
ling the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,"  was 
a  type  of  «  the  [spiritual]  blood  of  Christ" — the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  alone  can  "  purge  the  conscience  from  dead  works  to 
serve  the  living  God."  Heb.  ix.  13,  14. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  see,  that  the  ceremo- 
nial Law"  had  a  sublime,  a  deeply  important  meaning!  It 
was  a  shadow  of  good  things,"  divine  realities,  "  to  come :'' — 
Its  types  sind  figures  had  tlieir  respective  antitypes — and  are  all 
fulfilled  in  the  experience  of  the  crucified  and  quickened 
Christian.'* 


483 


All  my  opponent's  arguments,  therefore,  which  go  to  prove 
an  atonement  necessary,  are  works  of  supererogation  !  The 
great  difference  between  us  in  this  point,  as  in  almost  all  others, 
lies  in  our  mode  of  understanding  the  Scriptures.  We  consider 
God  as  one  pure,  eternal  Holy  Spirit,  who  created,  and  upholds, 
and  fills  all  things.    He  considers  him  a  kind  of  covipounded 
being,  made  up    finite  parts,  one  of  which  can  be  in  one  place^ 
while  the  otliers  are  in  another.    One  of  which  is  again  com- 
pounded of  flesh,  and  blood,  and  bones,  and  spirit — the  others 
being  ttvo  distinct  Holy  Spirits  I — one  of  them  mortal,  the  otliers 
immortal  I — one  of  them  rigidly  just,  but  very  unmerciful;  an- 
other very  merciful,  but  very  unjust !    We  consider  the  saving 
flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,''^  are  "  spirit  and  life      he  considers 
them  outward  and  elementary, — We  consider  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  real  and  substantial — he  considers  it  unreal  and  im- 
putative— we  consider  the  Gospel  justification  a  being  made 
just, — he  considers  it  a  cloak  for  sin  I   We  consider  the  baptism 
of  Christ,  a  baptism  of  the  "  holy  spirit  and  of  fire,^^ — he  consi- 
ders it  the  sprinkling  of  water  in  the  face  /    We  consider  the 
Lord's  supper,  a  spiritual  communion  with  Christ — a  parti- 
cipation of  **  the  bread  that  cometh  down  from  heaven,''^  and  of 
the    new  wine  of  the  kingdom    — he  considers  it  the  eating  of 
bread  that  grows  out  of  the  earths  a  drinking  of  wine  the  pro- 
duction of  Madeira  or  Teneriffe  !    We  consider  God's  love  uni- 
versal, that  he  is    not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance — he  considers  it  limited  to  a 
very  few,  and  that  God  has  eternally  decreed  that  all  the  rest 
should  go  into  everlasting  perdition  !    And  for  all  this  he  con- 
siders usas««  heretics,"  and  calls  upon  our  <*  Christian  brethren 
to  deny  us  the  Christian  name — and  we  consider  him  like 
those  who  requested  our  Lord  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven,  to 
consume  those  who  differed  from  them  in  opinion — that  he 
knows  not  what  spirit  he  is  of," — that  his  mind  is  darkened, 
being  alienated  from  that  divine  light,  which  **  is  the  true  light, 
that  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world." 

At  the  same  time,  that  from  the  unequivocal  evidence  fur- 
nished by  himself,  we  are  bound  thus  to  consider  our  opponent, 
I  would  not  be  understood  to  mean,  that  we  consider  all  those 
who  do  not  subscribe  to  our  sentiments,  in  the  same  state.  Far 
be  it  from  us ! — We  believe  that  our  Lord  "  has  many  sheep, 
that  are  not  of  our  fold" — that  "  in  every  nation,  they  that  fear 
God  and  work  righteousness,  are  accepted  of  him  ;" — that  God 
does  not  judge  of  men  by  their  creeds,  but  by  the  sincerity  of 
their  hearts,  and  the  purity  of  their  lives — and  that  all  the  noise 
that  is  made  in  the  world  about  modes  of  faith,"  is  to  him  but 
«  as  sounding  brass  or  a  tinkling  cymbal,"  unless  it  be  ac* 


484 


eompanied  by  a  real  substantial  rigbteousness  in  tbe  heart 
and  life." — And  we  believe,  that  however  Christians  raa>'  differ 
in  doctrinal  points,  yet  if  tbey  walk  in  the  light,  as  GOD  is  in 
the  light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  anotlier,  and  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  ail  sin.  AMICUS. 

Fridat/,  December  20,  1822. 

LETTER  XLII. 

ON"  ATONEMENT  AND  JUSTIFICATION. 

«  This  is  he  that  came  by  umtpr  and  bloody  even  Jesus  Christy  ndt 
by  water  only,  but  bv  water  and  blood."  1  John  v.  6. 

♦ 

The  salvation  of  Jesus  Christ  has  two  parts :  Justification 
and  Sanctifieation.  These  two,  though  thev  never  should  be 
separated,  should  never  be  confounded.  By  justification  we 
arc  delivered  frtitn  tbe  curse  of  the  Law,  and  tntified  to  hea- 
ven ;  hy  sanetification  our  nature  is  renewed,  and  made  meet 
for  heaven.  The/orwer  Christ  hath  purchased  hj'  his  ^^hlood^^ 
or  bis  sufftrivigs  in  our  stead  ;  the  latter  is  accomplished  by  his 
/Spirit,  so  often  emblematized  by  water."  That  Christ  should 
come  by  water,"  i.  e.  to  cleanse  our  hearts  from  the  potlittions 
of  sin,  was  predicted  and  typified  under  the  old  dispensation, 
by  aUntions,  bapti^zing,  purifyingSf  &c. :  that  he  should  come 
aiso  by  blood,"  i.  e.  to  expiate  our  guilthy  dying  in  our  stead, 
was  also  typified  and  certified  by  all  their  bloody  sacrifices. 
See  Hebrews  ix.  and  x.  One  part  of  this  salvation  you  would 
have  us  leave  entirely  out  of  view.  You  would  make  us  believe 
he  came  «*  hy  water  only  whereas,  he  came  «  not  hy  water 
only,  but  hy  water  and  blood.^^  He  came  not  only  to  work  in 
lis  a  righteousness  of  heart  and  life,"  but,  as  a  preparatory 
step,  to  deliver  us  from  the  curse  of  the  Law,  by  being  made 
a  curse  for  us."  Gal.  iii.  13.  These  two  parts  of  his  salvation 
are  strikingly  represented  by  the  two  ordinances  of  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  The  latter  represents  our  justification 
by  the  "  blood"  or  atonement  of  Christ,  and  is  therefore  call- 
ed the  *<  cup  of  the  New  Covenant  in  his  blood  ;"  the  latter 
represents  our  sanctification  by  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Tit.  iii.  5»  Hence,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  "  three  that  bear  record  in  earth,"  (i  John  v.  8,)  he 
mentions  as  two  "the  water  and  blood,"  i.  e.  the  two  standing 
ordinances  of  the  church.  And  while  these  two  ordinances  con- 
tinue to  be  administered  in  the  church,  we  shall  have  Twq 


4S5 


Witnesses  that  Christ  came  «  not  by  water  only, but  by  "blood," 
to  make  atonement,  as  well  as  to  work  in  us  a  **  substantial 
righteousness  of  heart  and  life." 

Thai  an  atoncnu'nt  is  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  and 
has  actually  been  made,  1  brought  in  my  iiisif  fifteen  arguments 
to  provt .  Of  these  *•  Amicus"  has  noticed  onl^  two  or  three; 
for  wliai  reason  he  was  so  s.i>  of  the  rest,  let  the  public  judge. 
Among  other  erroneous  remarks,  1  notice  the  following  : 

Rem.  1.  *♦  That  the  salvation  of  the  soul  is  effected,  not  by 
tvhat  Christ  did  Jor  us  in  his  outward  and  temporary  manifesta- 
tion eighteen  hundred  years  ago ;  not  by  any  imputation  of  his 
merits  or  righteousness,  may  be  easily  demonstrated  from  Scrip- 
ture." Easy,  however,  as  he  thought  it  to  «  demonstrate"  his 
position,  in  his  attempt  he  completely  failed !  His  quotations 
only  prove  that  the  atonement  is  not  atl  the  salvation  of  Christ; 
that  sanctification  must  follow  that  atonement  before  salvation 
can  be  complete.  >Ve  do  not  say  that  Christ  came  by  blood 
only,"  but  by  water  and  blood.^^  And  all  his  eftbrts  to  prove 
that  the  Saviour  came  by  "  w  ater,"  do  not  prove  that  he  came 
by  **  water  only" — which  it  was  his  object  to  prove  ! 

2.  He  is  continually  railing  against  predestination ^  election, 
and  particular  redemption,  as  if  Paul  had  ever  advanced  these 
sentiments,  or  even  hinted  at  them  !  They  have  nothing  to  do 
with  this  controversy  ;  and  the  only  remark  (now  recollected) 
ever  made  by  Paul  upon  these  subjects,  was  to  this  effect :  that 

a  belief  of  the  above  doctrines  was  not  essential  to  salvation." 
"Where  then  does  Amicus"  get  his  ground  for  railing?  Rea- 
der, he  got  it  where  he  got  my  ^<  declaration"  that  I  w^as  a 

hireling  minister," — a  scholar  from  a  "  theological  semina- 
ry ;"  a  declaration  which  he  assures  you  /  have  made  I !  !  A 
WTiter,  however,  who  can  quote  from  Scripture  what  is  not  in 
Scripture,  may  well  quote  from  my  writings  what  no  one  but 
himself  ever  saw  in  them  !  The  fact  is,  he  wishes  to  excite  a 
diversion  in  his  favour  among  the  Christians  who  are  opposed 
to  "  Calvinistic"  doctrines,  by  identifying  the  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  atonement  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic svstem  !  This  high  compliment  to  Calvinistic  churches, 
the  Methodists  and  Episcopalians  will  not  thank  him  for.  They 
will  esteem  it  no  honour  to  be  ranked  with  Socinians,  Arians, 
Sabellians,  and  those  who  deny  the  Lord  that  bought  them," 
and  reject  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ! 

3.  He  says  :  The  doctrine  of  paying  a  price  to  God  for  our 
redemption,  to  satisfy  his  offended  justice,  is  not  to  be  found  in 
any  part  of  the  Bible,'^  That  you  cannot  find  it,  is  no  proof  it  is 
not  there.  Those  who  cannot  find  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
and  divinity  of  Christ,  would  not  surprise  us  if  they  failed  to 


486 


find  any  one  doctrine  of  Christianity  in  the  saered  volume  I 
However,  if  Christ  paid  no  price  for  our  salvation,"  how 
could  the  Apostle  say  1  Cor.  vi.  20.  vii.  23 :  Ye  are  bought 
with  a  price  /"  Acts  xx.  28  :  He  purchased  the  church  with 
his  own  blood."  1  Pet.  i.  18  :  "  Ye  were  redeemed  not  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with  the  precious  blood 
of  Christ."  Matt,  xx,  28  :  The  Son  of  Man  came  to  give  his 
life  a  RANSOM  for  many."  Now,  how  could  he  **  purchase'*^  with- 
out a  price  I  What  is  a  ransom,^^  but  a  price  !  And  what  was 
this  ransom  but  his  "  life,"  his  blood  !"  The  Bible  therefore 
plainly  teaches,  that  our  salvation  was  purchased  with  a  price, 
and  that  price  was  the  blood  or  the  atonement  of  our  Saviour. 

^,  He  brings  the  case  of  the  JSTinevites  as  a  proof  that  God 
can  and  does  pardon  sin  withotit  a  satisfaction, — Now,  not  to  ar- 
gue, as  I  might,  that  the  «  repentance"  of  these  Ninevites  was, 
like  the  repentance  of  Ahab,  merely  external ;  and  the  **  par- 
don" bestowed  a  mere  removal  of  temporal  judgment,  (as  most 
Christians  and  commentators  suppose) ;  if  we  grant  their  re- 
pentance was  sincere,  and  their  pardon  complete,  does  it  follow 
their  sin  was  pardoned  without  a  satisfaction  ?  By  no  means ; 
for  in  the  purpose  of  God,  and  in  the  eternal  covenant  of  peace, 
Christ  was  "  the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world*'^ 
Accordingly,  God  is  said  to  set  forth  Christ  "  to  be  a  propitia- 
tion through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  in  the 
remission  of  sins  that  were  past,  through  the  forbearance  of 
God,"  i.  e.  that  God  might  appear  to  be  righteous  in  .the  for- 
giveness he  had  already  shown  to  ancient  saints.  As  it  is  said 
in  the  next  verse  :  "  to  declare  his  righteousnCvSS,  that  he  might 
be  Just,  and  the  justifer  of  him  that  believeth  in  Jesus,"  Rom. 
iii.  24*.  If  there  be  any  meaning  in  these  passages,  they  prove 
that  without  such  a  propitiation,"  God  could  not  have  been 
righteous"  in  the  «  remission  of  sins  without  such  a  satis- 
faction, he  could  not  have  been  "just"  in  "justifying"  those 
who  believe.  In  other  words,  they  prove  the  necessity  and  the 
reality  of  an  atonement. 

5.  He  says :  «  The  sacrifices  of  the  ceremonial  Law  typifi- 
ed not  a  material  outward  sacrifice,  but  a  spiritual  offering  on 
the  altar  of  the  heart,*'  i.  e.  the  ancient  sacrifices  of  living  vic- 
tims were  typical  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  our 
hearts.  According  to  your  statement,  then,  the  death  of 
Christ  was  an  event  of  no  consequence,  and  had  no  typical  re- 
presentation under  the  old  economy'  ! ! !  The  fact  is,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  spirit  on  our  hearts  was  typified  (as  [  have  before 
observed)  by  the  sprinklings,  incense,  circumcision,  and  other 
shadows  of  that  dispensation ;  while  every  innocent  victim  slain 
to  "  make  atonement"  for  sin,  was  typical  of  that  one  globi- 


48r 


ous  viCTi!^i,  who  was  afterwards  offered  on  Mount  Calvary  for 
the  sins  of  the  world  ! 

6.  He  thinks  it  a  horrible  doctrine,  that  Forgiveness  is  con- 
trary to  God's  law  /"  I  would  ask  him  in  what  part  of  the  moral 
law  (for  it  is  this  law  of  which  sin  is  a  transgression)  provision 
is  made  for  forgiveness  ?  I  never  saw  it ;  I  only  read,  **  Cursed 
is  every  one  who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
of  the  Law  to  do  them :  Gal.  iii.  10.  Forgiveness  is  contrary 
to  this  law ;  and  "  if  righteousness  (or  forgiveness)  could  have 
come  by  it,  then  Christ  is  dead  in  vain  Gal.  ii.  21.  I  speak 
not  of  the  forgiveness  of  a  brother's  injury,  hut  of  the  conduct  of 
a  judge  towards  a  convicted  criminal.  As  individuals,  we  are 
bound  to  forgive  our  individual  personal  injuries,  even  till  *'  se- 
venty times  seven  times,"  and  that  without  any  satisfaction  on 
their  part.  But  a  judge  has  no  right  to  forgive ;  and  if  he  does 
forgive  a  criminal  whom  the  law  condemns,  he  acts  contrary  to 
law,  and  is  an  w?i/ws^  judge.  I  repeat  it,  therefore,  in  denying 
the  atonement,  you  make  God  an  <*  unjust  judge,"  trampling  on 
his  own  holy  and  perfect  law  ! ! ! 

And  here  I  leave  the  subject  of  atonement.  His  principal  ob- 
jections are  now  answered ;  and  ten  or  twelve  of  my  strongest 
arguments  he  has  not  dared  to  notice. 

I  cannot  conclude  this  controversy  with  a  more  important  sub- 
ject than  that  of 

JUSTIFICATION. 

In  Letter  xvi.  p.  179,  the  public  has  had  a  short  introductory 
essay  on  this  subject,  which  (should  these  Letters  be  ever  pub- 
lished in  a  volume)  I  should  be  glad  to  have  inserted  here.  In 
that  number,  the  importance  of  the  controversy,  the  precise 
state  of  the  question,  your  sentiments  quoted  from  Barclay, 
Kersey  and  others,  and  a  few  arguments  for  the  truth,  were 
presented  to  the  public. 

The  errors  with  which  you  were  then  charged,  Amicus," 
in  his  last  two  numbers,  has  full}'  avowed.  He  has  laboured  to 
prove  that  we  are  not  to  be  justified  by  the  righteousness  of 

another,  who  died  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,''  but  by  a 

substantial  righteousness  of  heart  and  life,"  by  a  ♦'subject- 
ing of  our  will  to  the  Divine  will,"  by  a  righteousness  "  pro- 
duced BY  OUR  OBEDIENCE  to  tlic  word  of  God  nigh  in  the 
heart ;  or,  as  he  says  again  :  produced  by  our  submission 
to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit." 

Now,  that  your  foundation  is  a  foundation  of  sand,  is  evi- 
dent. 

1.  Because  to  be  jiivStified  by  in/miairighteou^ess.  is  really 
to  be  justified  by  our  oxvn  7VorksJ  Your  internal  righteousness 


48S 

V 

is  made  up  of  several  different  graces;  such  as  faith,  repent- 
ance, love,  humility,  thankfulness,  &c.  all  which  are  **  works 
of  our  own  and  to  be  justified  by  these,  is  to  be  justified  by 
our  own  works  ; — in  other  words,  these  works  are  the  works 
of  the  Law,"  by  which  ♦*  no  flesh  livin.e;  shall  be  justified." 
We  can  be  justified  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  obedience  and 
death  of  Jesus  Christ. 

2.  We  cannot  be  justified  by  any  "  righteousness  in  our 
hearts,"  because  all  siLch  righteousness  is  imperfect.  To  be  jus- 
tified without  righteousness  is  impossible;  and  to  be  justified 
by  an  imperfect  righteousness  is  equally  impossible.  For  to 
justify  is  to  pronounce  perfectly  righteous.  But  no  man  can  be 
pronounced  as  in  himself  perfectly  righteous.  For  if  we  admit 
him  to  be  perfect  in  love  and  obedience  at  the  present  time,  it 
will  not  be  pretended  of  any  sinner  that  he  was  always  perfect; 
or  that  taking  his  rvhole  life  into  view,  he  can  be  pronounced 
perfectly  righteous.  If  therefore  a  man,  who  was  once  a  sinner, 
be  at  this  time  ever  so  righteous  in  heart  and  life,"  if  he  be 
ever  so  "  obedient  to  the  word  nigh  in  the  heart,"  or  ever 
so  "  subBffltjsive  to  the  operation  of  the  spirit,"  he  cannot  be 
thereby  justified;  because  he  was  not  a/wat/s  perfectly  righ- 
teous, and  a  long  score  of  former  sins  is  yet  unexpiated  !  But 
by  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  all  our  old  sins  are  expiated,  and 
by  his  obedience  or  righteousness  imimted  to  us,  we  are  com- 
pletely justified  who  believe  in  him. 

3.  We  are  to  be  justified  '*  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the 
Law  Rom.  iii.  28.  "Therefore  we  conclude,"  says  the  in- 
spired Apostle,  "  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the 
deeds  of  the  Law."  Here,  Mote  1.  The  Apostle  takes  it  for 
granted,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  Justification  ;  "  a  man  is  jus- 
tified.^' 2.  He  is  justified  without  any  obedience  or  righteous- 
ness of  heart  and  life, — without  the  deeds  of  the  Law."  3. 
That  he  is  justified  by  faith  alone:  he  is  justified  by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  Law." 

4.  We  are  to  be  justified  by  a  righteousness  not  properly  our 
own,  but  received  from  God  byfaitli  Phil.  iii.  9  :  "  That  I  may 
win  Christ  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own  righteous- 
ness which  is  of  the  Law,  but  that  which  is  through  the  faith 
of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith,"  Here 
the  Apostle  points  out  the  righteousness  by  which  he  expected 
to  be  justified  : — 1.  Not  by  any  righteousness  of  heart  and  life: 
"  not  having  on  mine  own  righteousness."  2.  Nor  faith  itself 
(which  some  have  taught  was  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  jus- 
tification,) but  that  which  is  «  through  faith," — the  righteous- 
ness which  is^f  God  by  faith;"  that  is,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  made  ours  by  imputation. 


480 


5.  We  are  to  be  justified  fredy  and  through  grace,  Rom.  iii.  24. 
Being  justified  J'reely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemption  that 

is  in  Jesus  Christ."  Note,  believers  are  to  be  justified," — 
jusiified  freely,"  without  any  consideration  of  merit  or  de- 
ment in  their  hearts  or  lives, — justified  by  liis  ♦•grace,"  with- 
out regard  to  works  either  good  or  bad  ; — justified  ^*  through 
the  redemption  ilvdt  is  in  Jesus  Christ:"  i.  e.  through  the  ransom 
which  he  paid,  and  the  righteousness  he  prepared. 

6.  We  are  to  be  justi  fied  by  ChrisVs  righteousness^  in  the  same 
way  in  which  he  was  condemned  for  our  sins,  2  Cor.  v.  21 :  «  He 
hath  made  him,  who  knew  no  sin,  to  be  sin  for  us,  that  we  might 
be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  Now  Christ  was 
*•  made  5m,"  not  by  infusing  a  •»  substantial  sinfulness  of  heart 
and  life,"  but  imputing  sin »  or  charging  sin  to  his  account.  In  the 
same  way  we  become  <•  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him,"  not 
by  his  working  in  us  a  »*  substantial  righteousness,"  but  by  im- 
puting, or  crediting  liis  righteousness  to  our  account. 

7.  We  are  to  be  justified  by  imputed  righteousness :  Romans 
iv.  5.  "  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto 
whom  the  Lord  imputeth  righteousxess  without  works." 
From  this  passage  we  learn — 1.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  im- 
puted righteousness,^^  which  many  speak  of  as  if  it  were  an  ab- 
surdity ! — 2.  That  there  is  such  a  thing  as  righteousness  with' 
out  works,^  which  according  to  your  doctrine  is  impossible  ! — 
3.  That  this  is  the  very  righteousness  by  which  «  David"  hop- 
ed, and  every  Christian  hopes  to  be  saved.  And  therefore — 
i.  Your  doctrine  which  founds  justification  on  an  internal 
righteousness,  and  measures  our  righteousness  by  our  works," 
is  unseriptural  and  dangerous.  Our  justification  is  perfect  in 
Christ, — is  perfect  the  moment  we  believe  in  him; — but  our 
saiictification  is  progressive  and  in  exact  proportion  to  our 
works. 

8.  We  cannot  be  justified  by  internal  righteousness,  because 
we  are  justified  when  ungodly.  Rom.  iv.  3  :  '*But  to  him  that 
ivorketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justipieth  the  un- 
godly, his  faith  is  counted  (or  imputed)  for  righteousness." 
From  this  passage  we  learn,  1.  That  our  works  do  not  consti- 
tute our  righteousness — "  to  him  that  worketh  not  his  faith  is 
counted  for  righteousness."  2.  That  it  is  not  our  godliness 
which  justifies  us,  for  we  are  justified  when  <*  ungodly."  Now 
if  the  ungodly"  have  a  righteousness  tojustify  them,  it  can- 
not be  in  themselveSf  for  this  would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
The  righteousness,  therefore,  by  which  sinners  are  justified, 
jnust  be  without  themselves, — in  other  words  in  Jesus  Christ. 

9.  The  Scriptural  way  of  justificaticm  excludes  boasting.  Rom. 
iii.  27:  "Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  excluded."  iv.  2  :  "  If 

62 


490 


Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  has  whereof  to  glory,*'  It 
is  plain,  then,  1.  That  a  way  of  justification  which  admits  of 
boasting,  is  not  the  right  way.  But  2.  Your  doctrine,  that  our 
obedience  to  the  word  nigh  in  the  heart  "produces"  rigttteous> 
iiess ;  that  our  «  submission  to  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  pro- 
duces*' that  righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified,  really 
takes  the  glory  of  our  salvation  from  God,  2Ln(\  gives  all  the  credit 
to  ourselves  !  1 1  Your  doctrine  makes  man  the  producer*'  of  his 
own  righteousness,  and  the  author  of  his  own  justification  ! ! ! 
To  all  this  it  will  be  objected, 

Obj.  1.  "  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  not  found  in  the  Bi- 
ble." I  know  not  what  Bible  some  people  may  use,  but  if  you 
will  take  the  common  edition,  and  turn  to  the  fourth  chapter  of 
Komans,  you  will  find  the  term     impute,"  and  its  equivalents 

count,"  "  reckon,"  used  no  less  than  ten  times  in  that  single 
chapter  !  Witness  the  following  expressions  :  It  was  counted 
unto  him  for  righteousness" — **  his  faith  is  counted  for  righte- 
ousness"— *<  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works"-— 

Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not  impute  sin" — 

faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness" — "  that 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them  also"— And  there- 
fore it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness."  <«Now  it  was 
imputed  to  him  for  us  also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed  if  we  be- 
lieve," &c.  Rom.  iv.  3,  5,  6,  8,  9,  11,  22,  23,  24.  And  yet  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  imputed  sin  or  imputed  righteousness  in  the 
Bible ! 

Obj.  2.  The  doctrine  of  justification  by  the  righteousness 
of  another,  tends  to  licentiousness,  inasmuch  as  it  leads  us  to 
neglect  a  personal  righteousness.*'  I  am  willing  the  tendency  of 
the  doctrine  should  be  judged  of  by  its  effects  on  the  life  and 
conduct, — ajid  am  sure  that  the  holiest  men  of  every  age,  have 
lived  and  died  in  the  full  belief  of  it.  No  doctrine  tends  so 
strongly  to  humble  the  believer  and  exalt  the  Saviour ;  we  never 
separate,  either  in  theory  or  in  practice,  these  two  parts  of 
our  salvation,  the  justification  of  our  persons,  and  the  sancii- 
fication  of  our  nature.  Though  a  «  righteousness  of  heart  and 
life"  is  not  the  ground  of  our  pardon,  it  inevitably  follows  it ; 
and  where  there  is  no  righteousness  of  heart,"  there  is  no 
evidence  of  reconciliation  with  God. 

As  you  will  probably  stigmatize  all  this  as  "  Calvinism,"  I 
will  in  conclusion,  quote  the  sentiments  of  a  church  and  of  a 
great  and  good  man,  not  generally  accused  of  "  Calvinistic" 
sentiments.  On  the  subject  of  justification,"  the  ixth  Article 
of  the  Methodist  church  says  :  "  We  are  accounted  righteous 
before  God  only  for  the  vierit  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  deservings; 


491 


wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  hy  faith  only  is  a  most  whole- 
some doctrine,  and  very  full  of  comfort."    And  in  the  next 
article,  it  is  said  :  that "  good  works  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and 
follow  after  justifcationf^'  of  course,  cannot  be  the  ground  of 
justification.    Similar  to  these  were  the  sentiments  of  John 
Wesiey.    In  his  sermon  on  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  lie  asks  :   *<  When 
is  it  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us, — and  in 
what  sense  is  it  imputed?   To  all  believers  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  imputed;  to  unbelievers  it  is  not.    But  when  is  it 
imputed  ?    When  they  believe.    In  that  very  hour  the  righteous* 
ness  of  Christ  is  theirs.    But  in  what  sense  is  this  righteousness 
imputed  to  believers  ?    In  this  :  all  believers  are  forgiven  and 
accepted,  not  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  in  them^  or  any  thing 
that  ever  was,  that  is,  or  ever  can  be  done  by  them,6wi  wholly 
and  solely  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  had  done  and  suffered  for 
them.    Not  of  works  lest  any  man  should  boast,  but  wholly  and 
solely  for  the  sake  of  what  Christ  hath  done  and  suffered  for 
us."    Again ;  in  his  Sermon  on  Rom.  iv.  5,  speaking  of  the 
justified  person,  he  says:  «  God  will  not  inflict  on  that  sinner 
what  he  deserved  to  suffer,  because  the  Son  of  his  love  suffered 
for  him, — He  hath  no  righteousness  at  all  antecedent  to  his  justifi- 
cation.   But  faith  is  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness  the  very 
moment  that  he  believeth.    Not  that  God  thinketh  him  to  be 
what  he  is  not.    But  as  he  made  Christ  to  be  sin  for  us,  that 
is,  treated  him  as  a  sinner,  punishing  him  for  our  sins,  so  he 
counteth  us  righteous  from  the  time  we  believe  in  him  :  that 
is,  he  doth  not  punish  us  for  our  sins,  but  treats  us  as  though 
we  were  guiltless  and  righteous."  Beauties  of  Wesley,  p.  p. 
52—56. 

Thus  ends  a  long,  but  I  trust,  not  an  unprofitable  contro- 
versy. If  the  controversy  be  published,  I  shall  claim  the  pri- 
vilege of  writing  a  preface.  Mr.  Robert  Porter  of  Wilmington, 
has  my  consent  to  publish  the  whole  or  any  part  of  what  I  have 
written,  on  his  own  account,  or  connected  with  any  other  per- 
son, in  any  shape  that  he  or  they  may  deem  proper. 

And  now,  my  dear  friends,  I  bid  you  FAREWELL!  May 
the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God  the  Father, 
and  the  communion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  bring  you  out  of  dark- 
ness into  his  marvellous  light,  for  his  name's  sake  !  Amen. 

PAUL. 

As  "  Paul,'*  in  his  last  letter,  complaiirs  that  I  have  left  »  number  of 
bis  arguments  unanswered,  I  would  just  observe,  that  the  limits  of  the  Re^ 
pository  make  it  absolutely  impossible  to  notice  every  argument  in  a  formal 
manner*  But  as  I  have  only  one  letf^r  more  t*  write,  and  as  I  am  desirous 


4,92 


of  replying  to  all  his  attempts  to  establish  what  I  consider  an  inconsistent 
irrational  scheme,  to  do  which  will  require  more  time  than  I  can  at  present 
devote  to  the  subject,  my  closing  letter  will  be  postponed  to  a  future  num- 
ber of  the  Repository.  AMICUS. 
12th  mo.  27, 1322. 

From  "  Amicus'"  note  inserted  in  the  last  Repository,  I  infer  he  intend* 
loading  the  paper  and  the  public  with  a  letter  still  longer  than  his  former 
numbers !  The  object  of  this  note  is  to  give  notice,  that  if  more  than  the 
usual  quantity  be  inserted  in  the  Repository,  I  sliall  claim  the  privilege  of  a 
yeply  equal  in  length  to  his  excess.  As  he  has  already  exceeded  me  in  the 
number^  and  still  more  in  the  length  of  his  letters,  the  demand  made  in  the 
note  cannot  be  considered  unreasonable.  I  have  no  wish,  however,  to  write 
more,  and  shall  be  satisfied  and  pleased  if  he  confines  himself  to  proper  limits 
Dec.  31,  1822.  PAUL. 
 ^m:^\-f:^ 

Sixth-day y  \st  mo.  17,  1823. 

LETTER  XLII. 

^'Paul"  in  his  last  Letter,  tells  us,  "  that  salvation  has  two 
parts,  justification  and  sanctification.'*  This  is  quite  in  cha- 
racter with  the  doctrine  which  divides  the  Deity  into  three 
parts  !  I  always  thought  salvation  was  a  being  saved  from  sin, 
and  all  its  consequent  miseries  ! — In  one  word,  "  redemption," 
That  divine  Being,  to  whom  the  prophet  addressing  himself, 
says :  ^*  Thou  art  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil,  and  canst 
not  look  upon  iniquity,'*  my  opponent  represents  as  the  justifior 
of  the  wicked,  whilst  he  remains  in  his  wickedness !  The 
Psalmist  queries:  "  Shall  the  throne  of  iniquity  [the  corrupt 
unsanctified  heart]  have  fellowship  with  thee  V* — ''Paui'^  an- 
swers in  the  affirmative! — A  man  may  be  justified  whilst  he 
remains  ungodly  ! — God  will  have  fellowship  with  iniquity  ! — 
Christ  will  have  concord  with  Belial  !  This  I  consider  as  a 
doctrine  of  Antichrist;  and  all  Paul's"  arguments  to  main- 
tain it,  are  contrary  to  the  express  language  of  Scripture,  and 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  purity  of  the  Deity. 

The  word  justification"  is  derived  from  two  Latin  words— 
the  adjective  *<justus,"  (just,)  and  the  verb  "facio,"  (to  make,) 
and  in  its  proper  sense,  signifies  to  make  just."  When  the 
Apostle  says:  "But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but  helieveth  on 
him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  faith  is  counted  for  righte- 
ousness,'* Rom.  iv.  5.  it  is  evident  by  the  context,  1st,  That  by 
works  he  means  "  the  works  of  the  Law"  of  Moses — ceremonial 
sacrifices, — the    meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings,*'  of 


tliat  dispensation ;  all  of  which  were  abolished  by  the  death  of 
Christ,  who  took  them  out  of  the  way,  nailing  them  to  his 
cross  :"  "  For,  (says  the  Apostle,)  by  the  works  of  the  Law,  no 
flesh  shall  be  justified,"  Gal.  ii.  16  ;  and  "  therefore,  we  con- 
clude, that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the 
Law,^^  Rom.  iii.  28.  By  which  it  is  evident,  that  he  had  not 
the  least  allusion  to  evangelical  works,  for  without  these  no  man 
can  be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God.  2nd,  That  by  God^s  justi- 
fying the  ungodly,''  he  did  not  mean,  that  Divine  purity  could 
ever  pronounce  a  wicked  man  just  J — for  *«  it  is  impossible  for 
God  to  lie,"  Rom.  vi.  18. — but,  that  true  evangelical  ^* faith, 
which  worketh  by  love,  to  the  purifying  of  the  heart,"  operating 
by  its  own  divine  energy  on  the  souls  of  ungodly  men,  actually 
produces  a  reformation,  works  a  change  of  heart,  and  makes 
them  just.  Gal,  vi.  6.  Acts  xv.  9.  This  is  the  way,  and  the 
only  way,  that  God  justifies  the  ungodly  — Therefore,  to  be 
justified  by  faith,^^  is  to  be  made  just,  by  the  efiectual  operation 
of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  in  the  soul,  through  faith. 

This  kind  of  righteousness  my  opponent  pronounces  "  a 
foundation  of  sand  !"  But  whoever  may  be  so  happy  as  to  at- 
tain to  it,  w  ill  find  it  in  the  day  of  trial,  a  «  rock,  against 
which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  be  able  to  prevail ;"  while 
the  poor  deluded  ungodly  professor,  wrapped  up  in  his  cloak 
of  imputative  righteousness,  and  nominal  justifcatioii,  though  he 
may  cry  **  Lord,  Lord,"  shall  be  swept  away  in  the  storm. 

Imputative  righteousness  will  do  as  much  for  a  real  sinner,  as 
the  imputation  of  vision  will  do  for  the  man  that  is  utterly  de- 
prived of  sight !  When  **  Bartimeus"  sat  in  the  suburbs  of 
Jericho,  his  eyes  sealed  in  total  darkness,  had  some  theological 
Pharisee  told  him,  that  the  eyes  of  Moses  were  o^itwardly  im- 
puted  to  him,  it  would  have  done  him  just  as  much  service,  as 
the  doctrine  odmputative  righteousness  does  to  the  unregenerate 
sinner  in  the  present  day  !  If  the  blind  Bartimeus  had  believ- 
ed him,  he  might  have  sat  still  when  our  Lord  passed  by,  and 
would  have  gone  down  to  his  grave  in  darkness ;  but  like  the 
truly  awakened  sinner,  who  hungers  and  thirsts,  not  after  iw- 
putative  righteousness,  but  after  the  substantial  righteousness 
of  Christ,  he  applied  for  relief,  to  Him  who  is  able  to  save 
to  the  uttermost,  all  who  come  unto  God  i&y  him,"  and  the  very 
same. Divine  power  that  now  saves  the  humble  penitent,  not  in 
his  sins,  but  "  from  his  sins,"  opened  his  eyes  to  the  beauties 
of  creation,  and  effectually  restored  him  to  the  countless  ad- 
vaiOages  of  light ! 

As  1  apprehend  no  branch  of  the  present  controversy,  is  of 
more  practical  importance,  than  the  one  now  under  discussion, 
I  will  therefore  enter  more  minutely  into  it,  and  take  up  my 
opponent's  arguments  in  the  order  tliey  are  stated.    He  says : 


1.  «  To  be  justified  by  internal  righteousness,  is  really  to  be 
justified  by  our  own  works,  because  internal  righteousness  is 
made  up  of  several  different  graces ;  such  as  faith,  repentance, 
love,  humility,  thankfulness,  &c.  all  which,  are  "  works  of  our 
own  and  to  be  j  ustified  by  these,  is  to  be  j  ustified  by  «  our  own 
works.''  In  this  sentence  we  have  a  fair  specimen  of  school  divi- 
nity, directly  opposed  to  the  plainest  testimonies  of  the  inspired 
penmen,  as  I  will  endeavour  to  prove.  1.  <*  Faith,"  he  says,  « is 
our  own  work  /"  The  Apostle  was  of  a  dilferent  opinion ;  he  tells 
us  expressly,  it  is  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit,  <*The  fruit  of  the  Spirit 
is  /ore,  joy,  peace,  long  suffering,  gentleness,  meekness, /ai^^, 
&c."  Gal.  V.  22.  Again,  he  says  positively,  it  is  the  gift  of  th& 
Spirit :  "  For  to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wisdom — 
to  another  faith,  by  the  same  Spirit."  1  Cor.  xii.  8.  True 
faith  is  the  very  power  of  God  in  the  soul,  the  great  and  effici- 
ent means  of  salvation. — It  purifies  the  heart.  Acts  xv.  9  ; — It 
sanctifies  the  soul,  xxvi.  18  ; — It  justifies,  makes  us  just,  Rom. 
iii.  28,  30 ;  Gal.  iii.  8 ; — It  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for, 
the  evidence  of  things  not  seen."  Heb.  xi,  1. — Its  author  is  God,^ 
and  its  end  is  salvation.  1  Pet.  i.  9.;  and  is  no  more  our  own 
work,  than  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  are  our  own  work  I  /  / 
2.  Neither  is  repentance  our  own  work  / — a  man  can  no  more 
repent  when  he  pleases,  than  he  can  fly  when  he  pleases !  It  is 
the  mercy  of  God  to  the  soul,  and  as  much  his  gift  as  faith  is  ! — 
It  is  the  gift  of  God  through  Christ ! — No  man  can  command 
it,  no  man  can  give  it !  Let  us  hear  the  language  of  inspira- 
tion on  this  point :  "  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus, 
whom  He  hath  exalted  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour,  for  to  give 
repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins." — Again  :  Then 
hath  God  also,  to  the  Gentiles,  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
Acts  V.  31.  xi.  18. — Again  :  The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  be 
gentle  unto  all  men ;  in  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose 
themselves,  if  God  peradventure  will  give  them  repentance,  to 
the  acknowledging  of  the  truth."  2  Tim,  ii.  24,  25.  3.  Neither 
is  Gospel  love  our  own  work  I  The  fruit  of  the  spirit  is  loveJ* 
Gal.  V.  22.  It  is  no  more  the  work  of  mam,  than  is  the  Atlan- 
tic ocean !  Let  the  divinely  illuminated  Evangelist  speak  to 
this  point :  Beloved,  let  us  love  one  another,  for  love  is  of 
God,  and  every  one  that  loveth  is  born  of  God,  and  knoweth 
God  !" — for  "  God  is  love,^^  1  John  iv.  7,  8.  In  fine,  the  works 
of  humility  or  meekness,  thankfulness  or  gratitude  to  God, 
long  suffering,  gentleness,  &c.  &c.  are  all  the  fruits  of  the 
spirit,  the  genuine  productions  of  a  new  birth  of  the  Divinity, 
and  as  such  entitle  the  new  man  in  Christ,  to  all  the  blessings 
of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  because  they  qualify  him  for  the  hap- 
piness of  the  heaveuly  state !  To  say  that  such  works  as  these 


495 


are  our  own  works,  or  the  works  of  the  Law,  is  just  as  true  as 
to  say  that  Adam  first  make  himself,  and  afterwards  made  this 
earth,  for  the  convenience  of  a  garden  ground  ! ! ! 

2nd,  My  opponent  says  :  *«  We  cannot  be  justified  by  any 
righteousness  in  our  hearts,  because  all  such  righteousness  is 
imperfect.  To  be  justified  without  righteousness  is  impossible, 
and  to  be  justified  by  an  imperfect  righteousness  is  equally  im- 
possible. For  to  justify,  is  to  pronounce  perfectly  righteous.  But 
no  man  can  be  pronounced  as  in  himself  perfectly  righteous.'* 
This  sentence  gives  us  a  further  view  of  the  nature  of  School 
Divinity  ;  and  proves  it  to  be  what  it  really  is,  the  invention  of 
dark  human  wisdom,  from  which  God  has  always  hidden  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom,  while  he  reveals  them  to  babes. 
Matt.  xi.  25.  Now,  if  "  we  cannot  be  justified  by  an>  righte- 
ousness in  our  hearts,"*^  we  cannot  be  justified  at  all !  For  if  we 
be  justified  by  faith,  that  faith  must  be  in  the  heart;  and  if  in 
the  heart,  it  must  operate  there,  and  if  it  operate  there,  there  it 
must  produce  its  own  proper  fruits  ;  for  the  Apostle  describes 
faith  as  an  operative  principle:  *«  In  Jesus  Christ,  neither  cir- 
cumcision availeth  any  thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  faith, 
which  worketh  by  love.^*  GaL  v.  6.  It  was  this  divine  principle 
that  operated  in  the  hearts  of  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  Joseph,  Moses,  &c.  &c.  and  made  them  righteous 
in  heart  and  life  ;  and  it  was  this  righteousness  that  entitled  them 
to  the  exalted  character  of  friends  of  God for  «  was  not 
Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works,  when  he  had  offered 
Isaac  his  son  upon  the  altar? — Seest  thou  not  (0  Imputarian) 
how  faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made 
perfect !"  James  ii.  21.  Now,  was  this  an  imperfect  righeous- 
ness^  It  would  border  on  impiety  to  afiirm  it !  All  God's  works 
are  perfect — the  fruits  of  genuine  faith,  however  circumscrib- 
ed in  extent,  are  perfect  in  their  nature  !  Repentance,  which  is 
the  gift  of  God,  is  perfect  in  its  nature,  and  perfectly  answers 
the  end  intended,  wherever  He  is  pleased  to  give  it !  The  lovt 
of  God,  shed  abroad  in  the  heart,  is  perfect  in  its  nature,  whe- 
ther it  only  produces  the  tear  of  gratitude,  or  whether  it  en- 
raptures the  soul,  and  transports  it  into  the  third  heavens? 
That  humility  which  is  produced  by  the  shining  of  divine  light, 
whether  by  revealing  to  our  understanding  the  purity,  the 
greatness,  and  the  majesty  of  God,  or  the  weakness,  the  wretch- 
edness, and  misery  of  man  without  Him !  Whether  it  raises  the 
humble  prayer  for  preservation  in  the  truth,  or  causes  us  to 
"  abhor  ourselves,  as  in  dust  and  ashes,"  is  perfect  in  its  na- 
ture ;  and  so  are  all  tlie  other  good  works  I  have  mentioned, 
because  they  are  the  works  of  a  perfect  and  infinitely  gloriom 
Beings  produced  by  his  own  immediate  operation  on  the  soul  \ 


496 


"  To  be  justilied  without  righteousness,  is  impossible  5  to  be 
justified  by  an  imperfect  righteousness,  is  equally  impossible." 
Granted.  And  what  follows  ?  Why,  if  it  be  impossible  to  be 
justified  without  righteousness,  tUan  justifying  nghteousness  must 
be  a  real  substantial  righteousness,  becatise  an  unreal  righteous^ 
ness  is  no  righteousness  at  all,  it  is  the  mere  phantom  ai'  a  dis- 
tempered brain! — And  this  is  exactly  such  a  righteousness  as 
niy  opponent  pleads  for! — It  is  an  ignis fatuus,  to  lead  the  poor 
sinner  into  the  dark  regions  of  carnal  security — to  amuse  him 
with  the  idea  that  all  is  safe,  while  the  leprosy  of  sin  is  pn^ying 
upon  his  vitals. — It  is  a  mere  cloak  to  cover  his  wound — an 
anodyne  to  lull  him  to  sleep,  till  death  overtake  him,  and  the 
searcher  of  hearts  find  him  ;  a  loathsome  and  polluted  subject, 
totally  unprepared  for  that  kingdom,  into  which  "  nothing  that 
defileth,  neither  whatsoever  worketh  abomination,  or  maketh  a 
lie,  shall  in  any  wise  enter."  Rev.  xxi.  27. 

My  opponent  assumes  the  ground,  that  "  to  justify  is  to  pro- 
nounce perfectly  righteous."  This  doctrine,  I  presume,  was  in- 
vented in  some  theological  seminary,  for  I  am  very  certain  it  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  Holy  Scriptures !  To  say,  that  God  ever  pro- 
nounced a  wicked  man  perfectltj  righteous,  is  a  gross  absurdity — 
it  is  to  charge  the  God  of  truth  with  falsehood  ! ! !  The  Aposto- 
lic doctrine  is :  "  He  that  doeth  righteousness  is  righteous" — 

He  that  committeth  sin  is  of  the  Devil."  1  John  iii.  7,  8.  My 
opponent  reverses  the  divine  order, — "he  that  doeth  wicked- 
ness may  be  perfectly  righteous'^ — <»  he  that  committeth  sin  may 
be  a  justified  child  of  God  /"  This  doctrine  is  not  only  absurd, 
but  it  is  dangerous  and  extremely  pernicious  !  It  confounds  the 
immutable  distinction  between  right  and  wrong,  and  is  highly 
derogatory  to  the  character  of  the  Deity  ! 

But  we  are  told:  "  If  a  man  who  was  once  a  sinner,  be  at 
this  time  ever  so  righteous  in  heart  and  life,  ever  so  obedient 
to  the  WORD  nigh  in  the  heart,  ever  so  submissive  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  cannot  be  thereby  justified,  because 
he  was  not  always  perfectly  righteous,  a  long  score  of  former 
sins  is  yet  unexpiated." — This  doctrine  is,  if  possible,  more 
absurd  than  its  forerunner! — It  supposes  impossibilities! — It 
supposes  a  man  may  be  so  perfectly  redeemed  from  sin,  by  obe- 
dience to  the  "  Word  nigh  in  the  heart,"  the  "  law  of  the  spirit 
of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  makes  free  from  the  law  of  sin 
and  death."  Rom.  viii.  3.  So  submissive  to  God,  who  "  work- 
eth in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good  pleasure.  Phil, 
ii.  13,  as  to  become  really  just,  and  yet  remain  unjustified  I !  ! 
It  supposes  a  man  may  attain,  by  divine  assistance,  the  highest 
state  of  Christian  perfection,  without  repentance  /  /  /  It  sup- 


*97 


poses  a  mau  may  "  repent  and  be  converted,^'  whilst  Lis  fonlier 
sins  iiave  not  been  forgiven  ! !  ! 

Now  as  conviction  and  reproof  for  sin,  is  GotJ's^rsf  work  in 
the  soul  for  its  redemption,  so  repentance  is  man's  Jirst  step 
towards  God — the  first  eTa7i^e/icai  worfe  that  precedes  justifica- 
tion ; — without  it,  no  man  was  ever  justified  ;  with  it,  no  man 
was  ever  condemned  ;  because  this  is  a  work  of  God  in  the  so^U, 
by  which  the  soul  is  turned  from  the  darkness"  of  sin,  <«  to 
the  lighl"  of  divine  life,  and  "  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  the 
power  of  God."  This  was  the  first  annunciation  of  the  Gospel, 
that  came  by  Jesus  Christ :  *«  Repent,  for  tiic  Kingdom  of  Hea- 
ven is  at  hand."  This  kingdom  is  GoiVs  free  gift?  His  own  pure 
love  and  infinite  mercy  are  the  sole  motives  of  this  gift ;  but  it 
can  only  be  given  to  the  repentant,  because  none  other  than  they 
can  possibly  receive  it;  and  when  received,  it  is  the  sole  cause 
of  justification,  righteousness,  sanctification,  and  perfect  re« 
demption  !— Now,  to  those  who  receive  this  free  gift,  it  be- 
comes, according  to  Christ's  own  words  ;  ^<  the  kingdom  of  God 
within  you/^  Luke  xvi.  21.  It  is  «  God  manifest  in  our  flesh." 
1  Tim.  iii.  16.  It  is  "  Christ  in  you,  the  liope  of  glory,"  Col.  i. 
27,  Rom.  viii.  10.  "  It  is  the  spirit  of  God  which  speaketh  in 
Mat.  X.  20.  It  is  "Jesus  Christ  come  in  the  flesh  and 
he  that  confesseth  it  not,'*  the  Apostle  expressly  declares, 
«  is  not  of  God.  And  this  is  that  spirit  of  Anti  christ  w  hereof 
you  have  h«ard,  that  it  should  come,  and  even  now  already  it 
is  in  the  world,"  1  John  iv.  3.  This  is  that  spirit  that  denies 
that  *<  Christ  is  the  true  light,  that  lighteth  every  man  that 
Cometh  into  the  world."  John  i.  9.  This  is  that  spirit  that  calls 
'Ms  true  light  An  «  ignis  fatuus,"  a  "  Jack-o-lantern,  a  "mis- 
guiding spirit ! !  I"  • 

3d.  Again  he  says  :  "We  are  to  be  justified  by  faith  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  Law^ ;"  and  then  concludes  :  that  "  we  are 
justified  without  any  obedience  or  righteousness  of  heart  and 
life."  Now  the  command  to  sinners  is  :  "  Repent,  and  be  con- 
verted, that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,"  Acts  iii.  19.  But  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  my  opponent,  obedience  to  this  command,  is  en* 
tirely  unnecessary,  in  order  ta  Justification — and  then  without 
any  repentance,  if  the  filthy  sinner  will  only  say  he  has /fli//i — 
will  only  subscribe  to  some  abstract  proposition — God  will 
*<justify"  him,  will  <•  pnmounce  him  perfectly  righteous,"  al- 
though at  the  same  time,  in  the  very  imtnrc  of  things,  this  un- 
repenting  hypocrite  must  be  an  abomination  i«  the  sight  of  Di- 
Tine  purity,  as  well  as  in  the  judgmentof  all  good  men  !— This 
doctrine  wants  a  name  tliat  will  adequately  describe  its  turpi- 
tude ! 

4(  We  are  to  be  justified  by  a  righteousness  not  properly 
63 


498 


our  own,  but  received  from  God  by  faith.'*  To  this  proposition 
I  freely  assent ! — but  not  to  the  unnatural  conclusion  he  draws 
from  it,  \vhen  he  says  :  this  rigliteousness  is  not  a  righteous- 
ness of  heart  and  life.'*  The  text  he  here  quotes  is  very  illy 
selected  for  his  purpose  :  "  That  1  may  win  Christ  and  be  found 
in  him,^'  &c.  to  use  the  words  of  tlie  Apostle  :  «  If  any  man  be 
in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature ;  old  things  are  past  away !  be- 
hold all  things  are  become  new,  and  all  things  of  God."  2  Cor. 
V.  17.  In  this  happy  redeemed  state,  man  lives  the  innocent 
life  of  Christ,  having  obtained  a  real  substantial  righteousness 
of  heart  and  life. 

6th.  We  are  justified  freely  through  grace."  Granted — 
But  how  ?  «<  by  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ And  this 
redemption  is  a  real  redemjition.  not  only  from  the  guilt,  but  the 
powder  of  sin  ! — As  God  ♦*  redtemed  Israel  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage,  and  from  the  hand  of  Pharaoh."  Deut.  vii.  8.  So  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ,  is  an  actual  redemption  from  the 
b>»ntiag*'  of  iniquity.  As  the  Israelites  were  really  ransomed 
by  divine  power  from  Egyptian  slavery,  so  Christ  now  really 
ransoms  his  obedient  children  from  the  slavery  of  sin.  Isa. 
xliii.  3. 

6th.  "  We  are  to  be  justified  by  Christ's  righteousness,  in 
the  same  way  that  he  was  condemned  for  our  sins.'*  If  this 
were  granted,  we  could  never  be  justified  at  all,  for  Christ  ne- 
ver was  condemned  for  our  sins  !  To  say  that  Christ  was  ever 
condemned  for  our  sins,  is  a  gross  unscriptural  notion  !  That  he 
suffered  for  sin,  is  admitted — that  he  bore  the  sins  of  mankind  in 
his  body  on  the  tree,  is  true,  and  that  he  really  suffered  under 
the  weight  of  sin  and  iniquity,  is  equally  true.  Now  as  he  re- 
ally suffered  for  sin,  so  must  we,^y  his  divine  power,  be  really 
redeemed  from  sin,  otherwise  we  shall  never  he  justified,  nor  be 
the  happy  heirs  of  immortal  glory,  with  Christ  in  his  king- 
dom ! ! ! 

7th.  <^  We  are  to  be  justified  by  imputed  righteousness." — 
«  David  describeth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  the 
Lord  imputeth  righteousness  without  works, Rom.  iv.  6.  Now 
I  deny  that  ever  God  imputed  righteousness  to  an  unrighteous 
man;  there  is  not  one  text  in  the  whole  Bible,  that  conveys 
such  an  absurd  idea.  The  works  here  spoken.of  were  the  works 
of  the  Law — outward  ceremonial  works,  as  clearly  appears  in 
this  chapter  :  For  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision 
as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  which  he  had,  yet  being 
nncircumcised."  ver.  11.  «  For  the  promise  that  he  should  be 
the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham  or  to  his  seed  through 
the  Law,  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.'^  ver.  13.  And 
this  promise  was  made  to  Abraliara,  after  he  had  attained  a 


499 


real  substantial  righteousness  of  heart  and  life,  manifesting  hia 
faith  by  his  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God  !  See  Gen.  xii.  4, 
**  For  by  faith  Abraham,  when  he  was  called  to  go  out  .into  a 
place  which  he  should  after  receive  for  an  inheritance,  obeyed, 
and  he  went  out,  not  knowing  whither  he  went."  Heb.  xi.  8. 
So  we  see,  tfiough  Abraham  was  justified  without  the  works  of 
the  Law,  yet  he  was  not  justified  without  the  works  of  faith — 
neither  shall  w^e  be — the  assertion  of  my  opponent  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

Sth.  "  We  cannot  be  justified  by  internal  righteousness,  be- 
cause we  are  justified  when  ungodly."  This  is  the  very  doc- 
trine of  Antichrist,  a  most  pernicious  error  !  INo  ungodl}'  man 
was  ever  justified  in  his  ungodliness.  God  justifies  the  ungod- 
*>y  making  them  just,  through  the  *«  obedience  of  faith," 
and  in  no  other  way. 

9th.  "  The  Scriptural  way  of  justification  excludes  boasting.'* 
Granted.  The  man  who  attains,  through  evangelical  obe- 
dience, to  a  real  substantial  righteousness,  obtains  it  by  that 
divine  *«  Law  written  in  the  heart,^^  which  excludes  boasting. 
There  is  no  man  so  humble  as  this  one — he  knows,  that  «*  after 
he  has  done  all,  he  is  an  unprofitable  servant :  he  has  only 
done  that  which  he  ought  to  have  done  ! ! !"  Rom.  iii.  27.  Luke 
xvii.  10. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  if  Christ  did  not  come  in  the  flesh  to  make 
by  his  sacrifice  an  atonement  iov  future  sins,  and  so  to  create 
a  capital  stock  of  merits  or  righteousness,  as  a  means  of  recon- 
ciling unborn  generations  to  God,  what  advantages  did  result 
from  that  manifestation  of  the  Deity  commensurate  to  the  won- 
derful display  of  divine  power  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
I  answer,  1st.  God's  unbounded  love  to  man  was  eminently 
manifest  in  the  coming  of  Christ:  for  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son."  John  iii.  16.  2nd,  The 
way  of  life  and  salvation  was  more  fully  opened  by  him,  than 
it  had  ever  been  before  this  manifestation  of  God's  love :  for 
<^  whosoever  believeth  in  him,  shall  not  perish,  but  have  ever- 
lasting life."  3rd.  The  Gospel,  which  is  <'  the  power  of  God 
unto  salvation,"  was  preached  with  divine  and  unprecedented 
power  and  energy  by  Christ ;  for  he  came  that  they  might 
have  life,  and  that  they  might  have  it  more  abundantly,"  John 
X.  10.  4th.  By  the  testimony  he  bore  to  the  truth,  both  in  the 
holy  doctrines  he  taught,  and  in  his  pure  and  spotless  life,  he 
pointed  out  the  nature  of  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven  or  the  Gos- 
pel dispensation,"  and  set  a  perfect  example  of  obedience  to 
the  divine  will,  under  the  most  trying  circumstances.  To 
this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came  Unto  this  world, 
that  I  should  bear  ivitness  unto  the  truth."  John  xviii.  37.  Sth* 


By  his  perfect  obedience  to  the  Jewish  ritual  Law,  he  matii^ 
fested  the  justice  of  God  in  giving  that  Law,  and  demonstrated 
to  the  world,  that  God  did  not  give  his  chosen  people  a  rule  of 
action  impracticable  in  its  nature.  6th.  By  his  perfect  obe- 
dience to  that  Law,  he  fulfilled  the  righteousness  of  that  dispen- 
sation,  which  had  **  now  waxed  old,  and  was  ready  to  vanish 
away."  Heb,  iii.  13.  7th.  By  his  death  he  made  "  reconcilia- 
tion for  iniquity,"  an  atontinent  for  legal  sins,  and '*  blotted 
out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances,  nailing  them  to  his  cross," 
Col.  ii.  14  :  for  him  hath  <*  God  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the 
remission  of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God." 
Bom.  iii.  25.  8th.  And  having,  as  the  anointed  God,  and  di- 
vinely commissioned  Messiah,  fulfilled  and  ended  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  he  opened  to  the  w^orld  the  JVew  Covenant:  the 
Law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  sets  free  from 
the  Law  of  sin  and  death.''  Rom.  viii.  2.  By  which  we  may 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  God  for  ourselves,  and  need  not 
that  any  man  teach  us,  but  as  Christ  the  anointed  of  God,  the 
spiritual  instructer,  teacheth  us — which  is  TRUTH  and  is  no 
lie."  1  John  i.  27.  9th.  By  Christ  as  manifested  in  that  pre- 
pared body,  Heb  x.  5,  God  declared  his  willingness  to  save, 
and  his  free  grace  to  pardon  the  repenting  sinner,  on  condition 
of  <kbedience:  not  imputing  his  trespasses  unto  him."  2  Cor. 
i.  19;  but  forgiving  him  freely,  without  any  consideration  paid, 
either  by  himself,  or  any  other  in  his  stead  ! 

Thus,  having  blotted  out  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances — 
the  outward  shadowy  dispensation  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  he 
preached  a  more  glorious  dispensation — the  "New  Coven- 
ant,"— *»  the  Kingdom  of  God" — «the  Gospel,"  as  manifested 
in  Hud  by  himself; — a  religion  of  realities,  the  substance  of  all 
types  and  shadows,  whose  baptism  is  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Luke  iii.  16.  Acts  i.  5.  Its  sacrifices  a  broken  spirit :  Psalm  li. 
17,  a  perfect  resignation  of  our  wills  to  the  will  of  God,  Matt, 
vi.  10.  lis  justijicatioii,  a  being  made  just.  Rom.  ii.  IS.  Its 
atonement,  a  real  reconciliation  and  affiliation  with  God,  by  a 
death  unto  sin.  Col.  i.  21.  22.  Its  righteousness,  a  real  sub- 
stantial righteousness  of  heart  and  life.  1  John  iii.  7.  Its  re- 
ward, peace  in  this  world,  and  eternal  glory  in  the  world  to 
come.  AMICUS. 

J>rOTE. 

Having  concluded  my  labours  in  this  field,  I  w  ill  say  a  few- 
words  to  my  readers  generally.  When  I  first  noticed  Paul" 
as  a  writer  in  the  Repository,  I  had  not  the  least  idea  of  enter- 
ing into  a  religious  controversy.    I  supposed  he  might  be  some 


501 


candid,  but  mistaken  neighbour,  who  only  wanted  information 
to  produce  that  charitable  feeling  which  ought  to  characterize 
the  professors  of  Christianity.  My  aim  was  to  shew  that  we 
had  such  reasons  for  our  practice,  as  appeared  to  us,  and  would 
appear  to  reasonable  men,  a  broad  and  suflficient  ground,  at 
least  for  religious  toleration.  With  this  view  1  issued  my  three 
first  numbers.  Butl  soon  perceived,  what  indeed  *»  Paul"  has 
since  openly  avowed,  that  I  had  an  opponent  whose  aim  was, 
not  to  be  informed,  but  to  vilify  us ! — 1  had  therefore  either  to 
submit  to  see  ourselves  grossly  misrepresented,  or  to  repel  his 
assault  by  an  exposure  of  the  truth  :  I  chose  the  latter.  The 
effect,  so  far  as  I  am  informed,  has  more  than  equalled  my 
most  sanguine  expectations. 

And  now  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  as  my  la- 
bours have  been  purely  voluntary,  so  if  in  any  case  I  have  in 
the  least  misrepresented  the  doctrines  of  our  Society,  the  blame 
ought  to  fall  exclusively  on  Amicus,  who  only  is  responsible 
for  the  sentiments  expressed  in  his  essays. 

With  a  sincere  and  ardent  wish,  that  all  the  blessings  of  a 
true  and  solid  piety  may  ever  attend  my  readers,  I  now  bid 
them  an  affectionate  farewell.  AMICUS. 


[Soon  after  the  conclusion  of  the  foregoing  discussion,  the  fol- 
lowing articles  appeared  in  the  Christian  Repository.  These 
the  publishers  had  thought  of  omitting.  But  as  they  relate  to  the 
controversy,  and  are  the  production  of  the  same  writers,  they  have 
concluded  to  subjoin  them.] 

For  my  part,  I  always  like  a  preface.  I  like  to  know  the  origin 
and  the  object  of  a  work,  and  what  the  author  thinks  of  it  when 
accomplished.  In  general,  a  book  without  a  preface,  is  like  a  house 
without  a  porch,  or  without  a  stepping  stone. 

As  these  Letters  will  probably  be  read  by  some  who  are  strangers 
to  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  written,  I  will  briefly 
state  their  origin  and  object. 

It  pleased  Providence  to  cast  the  writer's  lot  in  a  land  of  Qua- 
kerism ; — to  order  his  residence  in  a  town  where  the  truths  of  the 
Gospel  were  opposed  on  every  side. — Where  the  plenary  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures  was  denied;  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  of  the 
Divinity  and  Atonement  of  the  Saviour  called  in  question  ;  the 
ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  despised  ;  the  Sab- 
bath profaned  ;  preaching,  except  by  self-moved  errorists,  condemn- 
ed  ;  and  Bible  and  Missionary  efforts  constantly  ridiculed  and 
opposed.   Against  error  armed  with  wealth,  power,  numbers  and 


502 


uiflucnce,  the  truth  could  make  but  slow  progress,  and  that  amid 
many  discouragements.  What  was  worst  of  all,  these  errors  were 
cloaked  under  the  most  specious  terms  ;  infidel  doctrines  were  con- 
cealed under  Scripture  phrases,  and  thus  the  community  in  general 
were  deluded.  As  their  preachers  and  writers  carefully  avoided 
the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Atonement,  and  other  leading  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  now  and  then  the  friends  of  truth  would 
suspect  they  were  Deists  in  disguise ;  but  though  a  few  whispered 
their  fears,  none  dared  speak  out. 

A  religious  newspaper  was  established  in  this  place.  Not  a 
Quaker  took  it,  and  the  attempt  seemed  not  likely  to  succeed  for 
want  of  patronage.  The  opportunity  was  seized.  Whatever  else 
God  has  denied  the  writer  of  these  Letters,  he  has  raised  him  in 
some  measure  above  the  fear  of  man.  He  risked  the  consequences, 
questioned  their  Christianity,  and  has  convicted  them  at  the  bar  of 
the  Christian  public,  on  their  own  confesbi'm  ! 

When  this  controversy  was  commenced,  1  calculated,  as  a  thing 
of  course,  that  the  whole  body  of  Friends,  with  all  the  Unitarianism 
of  the  natural  heart,  the  indifftrentism  of  professing  Christians, 
and  the  cool  calculating  timid  policy  of  many  preachers,  would  ar  se 
against  me.  I  calculated,  as  a  thing  of  course,  to  be  assailed  with 
the  epithets  of  "  bigot,"  "  persecutor,"  "  sectarian,"  **  uncliarita- 
ble,"  &c.  as  I  have  been  in  papers  both  religious  and  political.  But 

none  of  these  things  moved  me."  They  neither  deterred  me  at 
first,  nor  have  disturbed  me  since. 

If  to  be  immoveably  attached  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity is  to  be  a  "  bigot,^^  I  am  one.  If  to  be  a  Christian  in  opposi- 
tion to  all  Deists  and  Unitarians,  is  to  be  a  "  sectarian,''^  I  am  one. 
If  to  refuse  to  Anti-trinitarians  and  Socinians  the  name  of  *•  Chris- 
tian" be  uncharitable,  I  have  no  such  charity."  And  if  to  attack 
fundamental  error,  especially  when  under  a  specious  guise,  it  is 
destroying  souls,  be  "  persecution,"  I  am  guilty. 

Yet,  considering  that  two-thirds  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  borough 
where  the  paper  was  published  were  Quakers, — that  Quakerism  had 
given  a  tone  of  feeling  to  all  the  country  round, — that  the  natural 
heart  is  every  where  inclined  to  infidelity, — and  also  that  many 
nominal  Christians,  deceived  by  specious  terms,  would  take  part 
against  me, — under  these  circumstances,  to  accuse  me  of  ^' perse- 
sution,^^  is  not  a  little  ludicrous  ! !  Did  David  persecute  Goliah  ! — 
or  did  the  twelve  Apostles  persecute  the  Jewish  nation  ! — or  the 
little  band  of  primitive  Christians  persecute  the  Roman  empire  * 
Who  ever  heard  of  the  minority  persecuting  the  majority!  ! 

Having  thus  noticed  the  origin,  let  me  now  state  the  precise 
object  of  these  Letters.  For  though  1  have  stated  it  often  in  the 
course  of  the  controversy,  some  people  have  short  memories,  and 
unhappily  misrepresent.  The  object  then  was  not  to  display  the 
author's  abilities  as  a  writer;  to  fine  writing  he  makes  no  preten- 
sions, and  if  a  display  of  Quaker  sentiments  could  have  been  other- 
wise obtained,  Paul  would  willingly  have  been  silent.   It  was  not 


563 


to  make  proselytes  to  a  particular  denomination  of  Christians,  for 
there  is  nothing  in  these  Letters  peculiar  to  any  sect,  unless 
"  Christians"  as  a  body  deserve  that  name.  Neither  was  it  my  ob- 
ject to  give  a  systematic  statement  of  orthodox  doctrines,  but  only 
to  notice  the  points  on  which  we  differed,  and  even  those,  only  so 
far  as  should  be  absolutely  necessary  to  draw  the  Quakers  from 
their  hiding  place. 

My  simple  and  sole  object  was,  to  convince  the  Chriitian  commu- 
rdty  that,  whatever  individuals  among  the  Friends  might  believe,  as 
a  Society  they  denied  the  faith,  and  held  doctrines  subversive  of 
Christianity.  And  the  way  in  which  I  proposed  to  accomplish  this, 
was  by  inducing  some  writer  to  come  out  with  a  statement  of  their 
views  on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity 
and  Atonement  of  Christ,  and  Everlasting  Punishments,  I  had  no 
doubt,  from  their  books,  sermons,  and  conversation,  that  they  were 
heretical  on  all  the  above  subjects  ;  and  that  if  the  Christian  public 
only  knew  their  sentiments,  they  would  immediately  disown  the 
Society.  The  reader  will  perceive,  as  he  proceeds,  that  in  every 
point,  except  the  last,  I  have  completely  succeeded.'  the  senti- 
ments AVOWED  BY  "amicus,''  ARE  THE  VERY  SENTIMENTS  WHICH 

I  WISHED  TO  FASTEN  ON  THE  SOCIETY  !  Souic  are  of  Opinion  that 
the  sentiments  of  "  Amicus"  are  not  the  sentiments  of  the  So- 
ciety. Why  then  have  they  not  been  disowned,  condemned  and 
opposed  ?  Why  have  they  devoured  his  essays  with  such  avidity, 
extolled  him  so  highly,  and  in  private  conversation,  why  have  their 
leaders  defended  him  continually  ?  That  some  individuals  are 
nearer  the  truth,  and  even  walking  in  the  truth,  I  do  not  doubt  5 
but  as  a  Society,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  they  are  as  far  oft*  as 
"  Amicus"  himself,  and  a  large  proportion  still  farther  ! 

If  the  reader  will  be  kind  enough  to  remember  my  object,  as 
above  stated,  he  will  perceive, 

1.  That  the  introductory  Letters  on  the  ordinances  of  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  intended  to  be  merely  introductory, 
and  to  have  no  great  importance  attached  to  them  by  myself.  On 
these  subjects,  their  sentiments  were  so  well  known,  that  no  confes- 
sion or  statement  was  needful.  I  had  no  wish  to  discuss  those  sub- 
jects, and  much  less  did  I  intend  spending  nine  months  on  a  topic 
of  so  little  conseqiience  !  Accordingly  when  "  Amicus"  wished  to 
have  the  paper  entirely  to  himself,  T,  without  hesitation,  yielded  to 
his  request,  hoping  that  after  giving  these  topics  a  transient  notice, 
he  would  pass  to  the  more  important  subjects,  to  which  I  urged  him 
in  short  notes  from  week  to  week,  offering  to  be  silent  myself  for 
months,  if  he  would  proceed  to  give  his  views  of  the  Trinity,  &c. 
Not  he  !  Perceiving  after  six  weeks  that  he  felt  no  disposition  to 
broach  any  important  subject,  but  was  disposed  to  weary  the  public 
patience  by  his  attenuated  discussions,  1  reclaimed  my  right,  and 
again  took  my  turn  in  the  Repository.  The  reader  will  perceive 
the  advantage  which  he  now  had  on  the  subject  of  Baptism,  from 
my  being  compelled  to  answer  several  of  his  Letters  in  one,  and  thus 


504 


crowding  too  much  matter  into  a  single  Letter.  The  careful  reader 
will  observe  in  my  few  Letters  on  that  subject,  a  solid  answer  to 
every  important  argument  of  my  adversary,  though  the  superficial 
reader,  who  will  not  take  my  arguments  by  weight,  but  by  the  bulky 
will  probably  not  be  satisfied  with  my  discussion  of  that  subject. 
In  this  part  of  the  controversy,  simple  and  unsuspecting  as  I  was, 
I  was  completely  overreached!  And  especially  was  I  chagrined 
when  he  shifted  his  ground,  and  after  for  a  long  time,  seeming  to 
admit  the  fact,  that  the  Apostles  actually  baptized  with  water,  and 
thus  preventing  my  arguments  to  prove  that  point, — he  at  length 
turns  round  and  denies  a  fact  never  denied  before  !  It  was  now 
too  late  for  me  to  return  and  adduce  the  arguments  which  I  ought 
to  have  introduced  at  first ;  and  as  I  was  impatient  to  enter  upon 
higher  subjects,  and  knew  he  only  wanted  an  excuse  to  tarry  where 
he  was,  and  as  Inever  did  ttttach  any  particular  importance  to  that 
part  of  the  controversy,  I  left  it  rather  unfinished,  to  arrive  sooner 
at  my  main  object. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Lord^s  Supper,  the  defence  is  more  satis- 
factory to  myself,  but  for  the  above  reasons,  I  attach  no  importance 
to  it. 

2.  The  reader,  by  remembering  my  main  object,  will  also  per- 
ceive a  reason  for  a  suggestion  which  I  am  now  about  to  make. 
Should  the  whole  controversy  be  published,  it  will  form  a  volume 
too  large  ever  to  be  read  with  att€4)tion  or  pleasure,  and,  in  con- 
nection with  the  high  price,  will  tend  to  defeat  the  very  object  of 
publication.  I  have  already  heard  complaints  of  the  price,  and  I 
am  convinced  no  printer  can  publish  the  whole  for  less  than  the 
price  proposed.  Now  I  am  willing  that  the  early  part  of  the  con- 
troversy be  omitted,  and  the  volume  (after  the  Introductory  num- 
ber of  each  party)  commence  with  my  sixteenth  Letter,  on  justi- 
fication. (See  page  179.)  Or  if  "  Amicus"  choose,  commence 
with  his  eighteenth  Letter,  (page  183,)  in  which  he  first  broaches 
the  doctrine  of  "  Internal  Light," — provided,  in  the  latter  case, 
that  my  Letter  on  "  Justification"  be  inserted  in  connection 
with  the  last  Letter  of  the  controversy,  as  I  have  requested  iii 
another  place.  If  "  Amicus"  really  wishes  the  circulation  of  the 
volume,  he  will  not  object  to  this  proposition.  This  suggestion 
proceeds  from  no  particular  fear  upon  the  subject ;  for,  as  I  said 
before,  the  truth  is  efficiently  supported,  though  by  no  means  as 
well  as  it  might  have  been.  But  my  real  and  sincere  motive  is  to 
lessen  the  price  of  the  volume,  by  throwing  out  the  least  important 
part  of  the  discussion, 

3.  The  reader,  by  recollecting  my  object,  will  also  perceive  a 
reason  for  my  not  treating  any  subject  as  systematically  or  theolo 
gically,  as  he  might  have  wished — though  I  think  the  careful  reader 
will  discover  far  more  connection  and  method  in  my  lucubrations, 
than  in  those  of  my  opponent.  But  as  my  chief  object  was  to  draw 
my  opponent  from  his  hiding  place,  and  elicit  a  confession  of  his 
sentiments  on  subjects  which  he  was  determined,  if  possible,,  never 


505 


to  discuss ;  and  as  he,  therefore,  was  disposed  to  follow  me  in 
every  digression  rather  than  consider  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinitj 
and  divinity  of  Christ,  I  was  prevented  from  discussing  many 
topics  which  I  would  otherwise  have  discussed  by  the  way.  For 
many  months,  therefore,  I,  as  it  were,  did  nothing  but  wait  for  him 
to  move  forward^ — answering  his  little  objections  and  avoiding 
every  new  topic,  lest  he  should  make  it  an  excuse  to  postpone  the 
principal  topics  which  he  knew  I  wished  to  discuss  ! 

At  length,  to  my  great  joy,  he  broached  the  subject  of  "  Internal 
Light."  With  what  success  he  was  combatted,  (though  it  was  not 
my  primary  object  to  refute,  so  much  as  to  draw  forth  his  senti- 
ments,) let  the  public  judge. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  he  seemed  resolved  not  to  speak. 
When  every  other  means  failed,  I  tried  a  bold,  and  what  he  calls 

indecent"  challenge,  and  assured  the  public  that  he  dare  not  con= 
fess  his  heretical  sentiments.  He  now  came  forth  and  gave  us  a 
full-length  portrait  of  an  Unitarian  J  Just,  however,  as  I  had  made 
preparations  to  discuss  the  subject,  I  was  compelled  by  Providence 
to  lay  aside  my  pen  for  several  weeks,  and  for  three  of  the  principal 
numbers  on  this  important  subject,  (to  wit,  the  XXXIIL,  XXXIV., 
and  XXXV,)  the  public  are  indebted  to  another  hand.  For  every 
other  sentence  over  the  signature  of"  PAUL,"  I  hold  myself  alone 
responsible.  When  I  was  able  to  resume  my  pen,  I  found  the  public 
complaining  of  the  length  of  the  controversy;  and  as  I  myself 
esteemed  it  already  too  tedious  for  our  readers,  and  as  the  confes- 
sions of  "Amicus"  as  to  the  main  point  (for  this  was  the  main 
point  of  all  the  controversy)  had  been  most  unequivocal,  I  con- 
cluded to  write  a  short  Number,  end  the  discussion  of  that  subject, 
and  urge  him  onward  towards  the  doctrine  of  Atonement.  This 
will  account  for  the  rather  abrupt  manner  in  which  I  left  fAa^  topic. 
My  object,  which  was  not  so  much  to  argue^  as  to  discover,  was  bj 
the  statements  of  "  Amicus"  clearly  obtained. 

Having  thus  settled  the  main  point,  that  they  worshipped  a  dif- 
ferent Deity,  it  was  with  my  full  approbation  and  consent  the  end 
of  the  controversy  was  announced.  After  having  denied  the  Trin- 
ity, and  thus  rejected  the  foundation,  it  was  very  easy  and  natural 
for  him  to  overturn  the  whole  superstructure  of  the  Gospel.  Ac- 
cordingly in  his  last  six  numbers,  he  has  given  us  the  reniainder  of 
his  system  of  error,  which  1  hope  the  public  never  will  forget. 

The  length  of  the  individual  essays  has  been  a  just  subject  of 
complaint,  but  was  no  fault  of  mine,  but  of  "Amicus,"  and  a  too 
indulgent  editor ;  who,  contrary  to  my  repeated  remonstrances, 
permitted  him  to  fill  s\ich  space,  as  rendered  it  absolutely  neces» 
sary  to  double  my  intended  quantity. 

Of  my  feelings  towards  my  opponent,  the  reader  must  not  judge 
from  occasional  asperities  of  style  and  arguments,  directed  not 
against  him,  but  the  system  which  he  advocated.  For,  towards  him, 
both  as  a  writer  and  a  man,  1  have  never  felt  any  thing  but  esteem 
and  affection.  No  reader  has  been  a  greater  admirer  of  hii3  inge- 
64> 


506 


riuitv"  and  eloquence  than  myself.  His  style  is  uncommonly  easy 
and 'popular,  and  his  mode  of  argument  far  better  calculated  to 
catch  the  superficial  reader,  and  to  suit  the  common  taste,  as  his 
doctrines  are  to  suit  the  natural  heart,  than  mine.  I  regret  that  it 
is  not  in  my  power  to  admire  his  learning  so  much  as  many  do.— 
Of  Hebrew  he  knows  nothing,  (though  some  of  his  criticisms  were 
written  by  a  pretty  able  hand,)  of  Oreek  he  is  also  manifestly  ig- 
norant, and  what  little  Latin  he  once  knew,  he  has  almost  forgotten, 
I  take  no  pleasure  in  these  remarks,  but  the  public  should  not  be 
deceived  by  showy  appearances. 

As  to  the  general  spirit  of  these  Letters,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  it  is  difficult  for  a  controversialist  to  be  always  perfectly  calm^ 
especially  when  important  truths  are  undermined ;  but  I  do  assure 
the  public,  that,  however  rough  my  manner,  I  have  felt  nothing  but 
love.    True,  if  you  take  the  statement  of  my  motives  and  conduct 
from  my  antagonist,  and  construe  my  silence  as  a  proof  of  guilt,  I 
shall  be  almost  every  week  convicted  of  "  slander,"  "  malice," 
"  avarice,"  and  "  falsehood  !"    You  will  believe  me  a  "  Saul,"  a 
"  Balaam,"  a     Judas,"  a  "  hireling,"  and  a  "  hypocrite  1"  You 
will  convict  me  continually  of  "anger,"  "  detraction,"  and  "  mis- 
representation ;"  not  to  mention  many  other  more  trifling  charges* 
such  as  "  self-conceit,"  and  "  ignorance  !!!"    Now  under  all  these 
I  have  felt  an  honest  independence,  and  have  scorned  to  answer 
them  ;  but  as  some  have  evidently  misconstrued  my  silence,  I  have 
one  request  to  make,  and  that  is,  that  you  would  examine  for  your^ 
selves.    Take  a  pen  in  your  hand,  and  as  you  read,  erase  every 
word  and  sentence  which  imputes  bad  motives  to  my  opponent, — 
which  blackens  his  moral  character  or  that  of  his  Society, — which 
charges  him  with  hypocrisy,  v^ith  avaHce  or  with  any  thing  im?norfli 
or  unamiable.   In  short,  erase  every  sentence  which  reflects  on  any 
thing  but  their  Doctrikes,  and  I  have  little  fear  of  many  blots 
upon  your  book  !    I  have,  and  it  is  the  ivorst  crime  with  which  I 
have  charged  them,  I  have  charged  tliem  with  denying  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Bible, — the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity — the  Divinity 
and  Jitonement  of  Christ,  &c. ;  and  if  "  the  greater  the  truth,  the 
greater  the  libel,"  then  am  I  guilty  of  a  libel  on  the  Quakers,  for 
''Amicus"  has  fully  avowed  the  truth  of  every  charge!!! 
But  if  otherwise,  if  the  truth  is  no  libel,  I  am  completely  acquitted 
from  the  so  often  repeated  charge  of  "  slander." 

If  the  whole  controversy  be  published,  I  have  one  request  to  make 
in  regard  to  my  third  Letter.  Through  some  carelessness  of  mine, 
the  first  half  was  printed  not  from  the  copy  I  had  prepared,  but 
from  some  rough  preparatory  notes.  It  is  at  present  in  a  very 
awkward  and  almost  unintelligible  state.  If,  however,  the  editor 
will  only  print  the  quotations  from  Scripture  in  full,  I  will  ask  no 
other  alteration;  and  as  an  indemnity  for  his  trouble,  he  may  omit 
the  Apology"  in  the  succeeding  Number  of  the  Repository,  other- 
wise I  wish  the  Apology  inserted.  The  number  will  still  be  very 
awkward  and  imperfect,  but  it  is  not  of  much  consequence.  I  sup- 


507 


pose  and  hope,  that  besides  the  regular  essays,  all  our  little  weekly 
notes  will  be  ^iven  to  the  public. 

In  conclusion,  I  commend  the  work  to  God,  and  hope  for  his 
blessing.  I  rejoice  that  ever  the  controversy  was  commenced,  as 
it  has  opened  the  eyes  of  the  community  to  the  soul-destroying  er- 
rors of  a  most  powerful  and  plausible  society,  and  has  excited  a 
spirit  of  inquiry  which  I  trust  will  not  soon  be  suppressed. 

The  Motto  which  I  wish  affixed  to  the  work,  is  Luke  xi.  35. 
"take  heed  that  the  light  which  is  in  thee  be  not  dark- 
ness." PAUL. 
Friday,  January  24,  1823. 


•Smicus^  reply  to    PauPs^^  intended  preface, 

"  Paul"  having  again  appeared  in  the  Repository,  intending  his 
productwn  as  a  preface  to  the  "  Letters  of  Paul  and  Amicus,"  and 
as  I  shall  object  to  any  prologue,  alteration,  transposition,  abrevia- 
tion  or  appendix,  it  will  be  proper  to  state  my  objections  and  make 
a  few  remarks  in  answer  to  his  statements. 

He  tells  us,  "he  always  likes  sl  preface^  and  to  know  what  an 
author  thinks  of  his  own  work  when  it  is  accomplished."  He  com- 
pares a  preface,to  "  a  porch,"  and  supposes  that  a  book  without  one, 
is  "  like  a  house  without  a  stepping  stone."  If  our  readers  will  con- 
sult his  first  Letter,  I  presume  they  will  agree  with  me,  that  he  has 
already  made  "  a  porch,^*  that  is  quite  as  good  as  the  house  he 
added  to  it,  and  furnishes  a  "  stepping  stone''*  every  way  worthy 
of  the  dark  smoky  hovel  into  which  it  leads.  It  appears,  however, 
by  his  anxiety  to  tear  down  a  large  part  of  his  own  house,  that  it  is 
not  so  much  a  new  porch  that  he  desires,  as  a  back  door  by  which  to 
escape  the  just  judgment  of  every  rational,  impartial  reader  of  our 
respective  Letters.  This  singular  attempt  will  infallibly  inform  the 
discerning  part  of  the  public,  "  what  the  author  thinks  of  his  own 
work  now  it  is  accomplished." 

He  then  informs  us,  "  that  it  pleased  Providence  to  cast  his  lot  in 
a  land  of  Quakerism,  a  town  where  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  were 
opposed  on  every  side."  All  religious  societies  but  the  Calvinists 
are  opposed  to  the  truth  !  ! !  Whether  the  truths  of  the  Gospel^  as 
preached  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  have  been  opposed  on  every 
side,  our  readers  by  this  time  may  determine.  That  they  have 
been  opposed  on  one  side,  is  very  evident,  if  the  plainest  language 
of  Scripture  can  be  evidence  in  the  case.  We  have  seen  "  the 
works  of  the  Law," — "  the  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings" 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  which  Christ  took  out  of  the  way,  nail- 
ing it  to  his  cross,"  again  introduced  as  essential  parts  of*'  the  New 
Covenant ! ! !"  We  have  seen  Christ,  "  the  true  Light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,"  denominated  an  "  impos- 
tor"—." an  ignis  fatuus"— "  a  Jack-o-lantem  ! ! We  have  heard 


bos 


the  Spirit  of  God,  called  "  a  misguiding  spirit !  ! !" — We  have  wit- 
nessed, a  weak  and  absurd  attempt,  to  prove  that  the  infinite  Jeho- 
vah was  a  compound  being,  make  up  of  finite  parts  !  !I — We  have 
been  told  that  the  CREATOR  of  the  world  was  mortal ;  that  the 
AUTHOR  OF  LIFE  was  killedby  his  own  workmanship  !  1 !— -We 
have  seen  the  merciful  God  represented  as  a  cruel  unmerciful  despot ^ 
creating  myriads  of  immortal  beings  on  purpose  to  plunge  them  in- 
to torment,  immeasurable  and  interminable  !!! — We  have  been  as- 
sured, that  a  God  of  purity  justifies  the  wicked  man  in  his  wicked- 
ness ;  that  Christ's  righteousness  is  a  kind  of  cloak  to  cover  the 
filthiness  of  the  unrepenting  hypocrite  ;  that  the  author  of  salvation 
holds  communion  with  iniquity,  and  stands  in  concord  with 
Belial !  ! ! — And  finally,  we  are  informed,  that  all  these  palpable 
absurdities,  are  true  Gospel  doctrines,  and  that  in  opposing  them  we 
oppose  "  the  truths  of  the  GospeV^ 

Now  I  think  it  needless  further  to  demonstrate,  that  these  doC' 
trines  are  not  the  glad  tidings,  or  Gospel  of  Christ  ;  but  the  ap- 
palling and  horribly  evil  tidings  that  came  by  an  apostacy  from 
Christ,  through  theological  schools,  and  a  corrupt  mercenary  priest- 
hood ! ! ! 

But  we  are  told,  that  in  spreading  his  budget  of  disgusting  errors, 
he  had  "  to  contend  with  wealth,  power,  numbers,  and  influence  ; 
and  that  he  could  make  but  slow  progress."  He  might  have  added, 
t  :at  he  had  to  contend  against  revelation,  reason,  and  common  sense, 
amidst  an  intelligent  well  informed  inquiring  population ;  circum- 
stances, eminently  calculated  to  retard  the  progress  of  error,  and 
to  defeat  the  machinations  of  priestcraft ! — But  he  "  risked  the  con- 
sequences and  the  consequences  that  naturally  and  unavoidably 
follow  the  course  he  has  pursued,  have  resulted  ;  instead  of  convinc- 
ing the  unbeliever,  or  confirming  the  wavering  in  the  doctrines  of 
the  persecuting  saini  ATHANASIUS,  he  has  driven  hundreds  from 
the  blood-stained  standard,  and  been  a  means  of  unshackling  many, 
even  of  his  own  denomination,  from  the  errors  of  an  unscriptural, 
and  irrational  theology. 

«  Whatever,"  says  my  opponent,  "  God  has  denied  him,  He  has 
raised  him  in  some  measure  above  the  fear  of  man  "  Now  if  to  make 
the  most  invidious  reflections  on  a  whole  community — if  to  publish 
the  most  palpable  untruths — if  to  contradict  himself  over  and  over 
again,  be  any  evidence  of  emancipation  from  "  the  fear  of  man,"  then 
we  must  grant,  that  "Paul"  has  been,  \n  great  measure,  relieved 
fromthis  kind  of  fear;  but  it  must  also  be  granted,  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  that  he  has  likewise  been  raised  above  the  fear  of  his 
Creator  J  !J — and  the  "cool  calculating  and  Christian  \)o\icy'^*  oi 
many  excellent  "  preachers"  of  different  religious  denominations, 
have  passed  a  sentence  on  his  productions,  which  though  it  may  not 
"  disturb"  my  opponent,  is  calculated  to  disturb  the  repose  of  any 
one,  whose  conscience  retains  a  truly  religious  tenderness,  or  re- 
gard for  an  unblemished  reputation  ! 

"  Paul"  in  his  preface,  informs  his  readers,  that  "  two-thifds  of 


509 


the  inhabitants  of  the  Borough,  where  the  paper  was  published, 
were  Quakers,  and  that  Quakerism  had  given  a  tone  of  feeling  to 
all  the  country'  round."  This  statement  gives  a  fair  specimen  of 
this  author's  love  of  veracity^  as  exhibited  in  more  than  ffty  in- 
stances in  his  Letters.  1  have  frequently  been  astonished,  in  the 
course  of  tliis  discussion,  at  the  utter  disregard  of  truth,  so  often 
manifested,  by  one  whose  profession  as  a  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
should  have  bound  him  to  set  an  example  of  great  purity  in  this  re- 
spect. Now  the  inhabitants  of  this  Borough  may  be  estimated,  in 
round  numbers,  at  six  thousand  souls  ;  the  members  of  our  Society, 
at  seven  hundred  and  fifty,  at  most.  To  these  may  be  added,  about 
two  hundred  and  fifty,  who  profess  our  principles,  and  who  are  not 
in  strict  membership  ;  the  sum  total  will  be,  I  suppose  at  most,  one 
thousand.  If  we  go  into  the  country  four  miles  round,  the  propor- 
tion of  our  members  to  the  whole  population  will  be  much  less  ;  as 
very  few  of  them  live  out  of  the  Borough.  My  opponent  tells  us, 
two-thirds  are  Quakers ;  but  the  fact  is,  that  one-sixth  at  most,  in- 
cluding professors,  are  Quakers.  In  order  to  swell  his  magnanimity 
in  adventuring  to  attack  so  formiable  a  body,  he  represents  us  as 
four  times  as  numerous  as  we  really  are  !  Like  the  evil  spies  that 
were  sent  to  examine  the  land,  he  sees  giants  in  his  way ;  and  like 
them,  I  trust  in  Providence,  he  and  his  fellow  craftsmen  shall  never 
subdue  it ! 

How  far  the  Quakers  have  given  a  tone  of  feeling  to  all  the  coun- 
try round,  I  am  not  able  to  say.  I  have  no  doubt  their  principles 
and  practice  have  opened  the  eyes  of  many,  to  see  the  unscriptural 
nature^  the  selfish  practices*  and  dangerous  tendency  of  a  hireling 
ministry ;  and  I  have  some  substantial  ground  to  believe,  that  the 
present  controversy  has  happily  extended  this  kind  of  influence. 

My  opponent  makes  a  curious  flourish  on  his  own  calculations. 
"  I  calculated,"  says  he,  "  to  be  assailed  with  the  epithets  of  higot, 
persecutor,  sectarian,  uncharitable^ — No  doubt  he  had  internal 
data  for  his  conclusions  on  this  subject ! — but  he  says  "  to  accuse  me 
of  persecution  is  not  a  little  ludicrous ;  did  David  persecute  Goliah  ?" 
Now  for  what  others  may  have  done,  I  am  not  accountable.  As  for 
Amicus,  I  am  sure  he  never  accused  "  Paul"  persecution.  I  was 
not  so  silly  as  to  accuse  him  of  doing  that  which  he  had  no  power 
to  do  ! ! ! 

In  his  statement  of  the  object  of  his  attack  on  the  Society,  Paul" 
has  made  a  miserable  attempt  to  impose  upon  his  readers.  He 
wishes  the  public  to  believe  he  had  no  proselyting  scheme  in  view. 
But  the  veil  he  would  draw  over  the  deformity  of  his  scheme,  is  too 
short  to  cover  it.  While  he  would  hide  one  end  of  it,  by  a  cunning 
attempt  to  persuade  us,  that  "  truth  was  his  object,"  [see  his  first 
Letter]  he  exposes  the  other,  by  an  acknowledgment,  that  he  '*  had 
no  intention  of  giving  a  systematic  statement  of  orthodox  doc- 
trines! iP^  Now  if  "  truth  was  his  object,"  and  orthodox  doctrines 
were  the  doctrines  of  truth,  why  did  he  not  intend  to  give  us  a  sys- 
tem^tic  statement  of  them?  Truth  is  altogether  lovely:  and  truth 


510 


can  never  be  better  promoted,  than  bj  exposing  her  to  view  in  all 
her  native  loveliness  !  As  to  the  allegation,  that  he  only  wished  <«  to 
draw  the  Quakers  from  their  hiding  place,"  it  involves  him  at  once 
in  the  guilt  of  ignorance  or  fraud.  The  Quakers  have  published 
their  sentiments  to  the  world,  with  unparalleled  industry.— In  the 
first  sixty  years  of  their  existence  as  a  body,  they  printed  and  dis- 
seminated nearly  four  thousand  different  publications,  on  religious 
subjects.  William  Penn's  Works,  which  contain  all  the  senti- 
ments of  Amicus  as  published  in  his  Letters,  have  gone  through  at 
least  four  editions,  and  are  widely  diffused.  The  Quakers,  both  in 
doctrine  and  practice,  have  stood  openly  before  the  public  for  more 
than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years!  Now  if  he  supposed  the  Quakers 
a  hidden  people,  he  was  grossly  ignorant  of  their  real  character,  as 
thousands  of  our  fellow  Christians  in  this  country  can  testify.  If  he 
knew  they  were  not  a  hidden  people^  he  is  guilty  of  a  low  fraud. 
Let  him  take  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  he  pleases. 

He  tells  us  very  triumphantly,  and  prints  the  sentence  in  capitals, 
that  "  the  sentiments  avowed  by  Amicus  are  the  very  sentiments 
which  he  wished  to  fasten  on  the  Society." — He  thinks,  or  pretends 
to  think,  that  these  sentiments  are  calculated  to  injure  us  in  the 
view  of  the  public.  But  in  this  he  is  egregiously  mistaken.  The 
sentiments  of  Friends,  on  many  important  points,  are  now  rapidly 
spreading  in  the  world,  and  particularly  in  this  country;  but  in  an 
especial  manner,  where  the  public  have  the  best  opportunities  of 
information.  Whilst  the  doctrine  of  Tritheisniy  or  Trinitarianismy 
with  all  its  shocking  and  absurd  appendages,  are  notoriously  on  the 
wane  !  Colleges  and  Universities,  the  seats  of  learning,  and  nurse- 
ries of  science,  have  abandoned  it,  and  in  many  places,  whole  con^ 
gregations  renouncing  it  as  impious,  have  openly  avowed  their 
change  of  opinion.  And  as  light  and  knowledge  are  extended,  as 
superstition  and  priestcraft,  which  for  ages,  have  swayed  their  ebon 
sceptre  over  the  intellectual  faculties  of  man,  yield  to  the  empire  of 
reason,  and  the  light  of  divine  revelation,  the  doctrines  of  Calvin- 
ism, like  owls,  who  cannot  bear  the  light,  will  retire  to  their  native 
shades,  and  only  be  heard  or  seen  by  the  benighted  traveller. 

I  will  now  recur  to  that  part  of  his  intended  preface,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  the  soi-disant  ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per ;  in  which  his  prevarication  and  double  dealing  are  conspicu- 
ously evident.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  which  our  readers  will  per- 
ceive by  a  recurrence  to  his  Letters,  that  "  Paul"  always  entered 
on  the  different  subjects  of  discussion,  with  great  self-confidence, 
and  an  air  of  triumph.  As  the  discussion  progressed,  he  evidently 
grew  restless  and  uneasy,  gave  many  tokens  of  chagrin  and  disap- 
pointment, and  at  last  would  openly  beg  his  opponent  for  a  cessa- 
tion of  arms.  Thus  the  subject  of  Missions  was  but  partially  open- 
ed by  Amicus,  till  he  challenged  him  to  the  field  on  the  subjects  of 
"  Baptism,"  and  the  "  Supper."  On  these  subjects,  "  Paul"  soon 
involved  himself  in  the  most  palpable  contradictions,  and  ludicrous 
absurdities,  and  very  pathetically  begged  me  to  leave  them  [sec 


oil 


page  152.] — After  this  we  entered  on  the  subject  of  "  Internal 
Light,"  of  which  he  became  very  tired,  and  tried  various  means  to 
induce  me  to  leave  this  interesting  topic  unfinished ;  at  length,  af- 
ter exposing  the  unscriptural  and  selfish  nature  of  a  mercenary 
priesthood,  I  gratified  him  by  taking  up  the  doctrines  of  the  Athan- 
asian  creed.  This  he  considered  an  impregnable  fortress;  to  use 
the  terms  of  one  of  his  particular  friends :  "  a  high  battlement.'* 
But  to  the  evident  grief  of  my  antagonist,  he  found  it  one  of  his 
most  vulnerable  positions  ! ! ! — There  is  no  point  of  scholastic  di- 
vinity, so  fraught  with  contradictions  and  palpable  absurdities,  as 
this.  It  contradicts  the  plainest  and  most  numerous  Scripture  pas- 
sages of  any  other.  It  puts  reason,  revelation,  and  common  sense, 
at  defiance,  and  leaves  us  to  struggle,  without  a  ray  of  light,  in  the 
confused  labyrinths  of  mysticism,  a  hopeless,  helpless  prey  to  spirit- 
ual wolves  who  spare  not  the  flock ! ! ! — From  this  v/e  passed  to 
Justification  by  Imputative  righteousness; — on  this  point  he  would 
not  answer  my  arguments — indeed  he  could  not;  but  happily  for 
him,  no  doubt  at  his  own  request, — his  friend  the  Editor  interposed, 
and  saved  him,  and  his  shattered  system,  from  an  exposure,  which  I 
was  preparing  for  the  public,  and  which  as  defendant  I  was  entitled 
to  make,  and  would  have  made  if  the  balance  of  privilege  had  been 
equally  poised. 

These  ordinances  (Baptism  and  the  Supper,)  he  told  us  (see  page 
16,)  were  the  seals  of  Gorf's  Covenant,  and  hadges  of  Christians 
fy," — "  of  high  moment  and  eternal  consequence,^*  In  his  intended 
preface,  he  says,  he  "  never  did  attach  any  particular  importance  to 
that  part  of  the  controversy."  I  have  not  time  to  notice  all  his 
contradictions  on  these  subjests,  I  will  therefore  refer  my  readers 
to  his  Letters,  for  further  proofs  of  "  Paul's"  inconsistency !  But, 
why  should  he  wish  to  prevent  the  republication  of  this  part  of  the 
controversy  ? — forsooth  to  make  the  book  smaller,  as  Paul" 
would  make  us  believe  !  The  real  reason,  however,  he  did  not  un- 
fold !  It  is  very  well  known,  that  the  legal  nature  of  these  ordinan- 
ces, and  their  inconsistency  with  the  Christian  dispensation,  were 
so  fully  proved,  that  a  number  of  persons  felt  relieved  from  their 
former  scruples  on  these  points,  and  "  Paul"  has  lost  many  little 
odd  jobs  of  sprinkling  infant  faces  with  water,  in  order  to  seal  them 
with  ^race, and  clothe  them  with  the  badges  of  Christianity! ! ! 

To  induce  me  to  leave  out  this  part  of  the  controversy,  he  says  : 
"If  Amicus  really  wishes  the  circulation  of  the  volume,  he  will 
not  object  to  this  proposition." — Now  Amicus  does  not  wish  to  cir- 
culate a  mutilated  copy  of  the  controversy  !  Whether  the  friends 
of  Amicus,  or  those  of "  Paul,"  are  most  anxious  to  circulate  the 
work,  will  be  amply  tested  by  the  subscription  papers.  On  this 
ground  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  rest  that  point ! 

lean  however  unite  with  "Paul"  in  the  hope  that  the  public 
will  never  forget  the  last  six  numbers  of  Amicus.  I  really  have 
some  doubts,  whether  "  we  worship  the  same  God  !"  Amicus  has  de- 
nied the  "  foundation"  of  Trinitarianism — the  division  of  the  Deity 


512 


into  parts — one  part  standing  on  the  earth  and  calling  to  another 
part  up  in  the  clouds! — The  murder  of  the  CREATOR  by  a  lawless 
company  of  Jews !  &c.  &c. — The  God  we  worship  is  one  pure 
Eternal  Spirit!  infinitely  merciful,  and  of  great  compassion,  par- 
doning  iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin  ;  omnipotent^  omnipresent^ 
indivisible,  and  infinite  in  wisdom  and  goodness.  These  characters 
do  not  apply  to  the  object  of  Trinitarian  worship — which  of  the 
two  is  the  God  delineated  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  1  am  perfectly 
willing  to  leave  the  public  to  decide  ! 

Of  my  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin  languages,  on 
which  "  Paul"  has  so  learnedly  descanted,  I  have  not  much  to 
boast — if  I  have  had  enough  to  meet  my  profound  antagonist  with 
his  borrowed  lore,  the  public,  I  trust,  will  hold  me  excused.  Those 
who  have  more  learning  than  either  of  us,  will  discover  one  fact : 
that  my  opponent  is  a,  mere  plagiarist!  he  has  in  a  great  variety  of 
instances  borrowed  not  only  the  sentiments,  but  the  very  language 
in  which  they  are  clothed!  "Paul"  may  consider  this  fact  as  a 
proof  of  his  great  erudition  ;  a  proof  which  Amicus  cannot  much 
admire  !!!  one  thing  is  very  certain  :  "  Paul"  is  wholly  ignorant  of 
Amicus.  He  has  made  many  attempts  to  designate  him ;  his  last 
proves  him  totally  in  the  dark. 

As  to  my  statements  of  "  the  motives  and  conduct  of  my  antago- 
nist," I  am  perfectly  willing  their  truth  should  be  tried  by  his  own 
publications.  It  is  through  this  medium  only  that  I  know  him.  Let 
my  readers  "take  a  pen,  and  as  they  read  erase"  every  incorrect 
statement  I  have  made,  and  I  believe  their  book  will  be  without  a 
blot!  or  let  them  prove  them  in  any  degree  unsound,  and  I  will 
make  a  public  recantation. 

Before  I  close  this  essay,  I  will  just  observe,  that  many  of  the 
palpable  falsehoods  from  time  to  time  uttered  by  my  opponent,  I  had 
not  room  nor  leisure  to  notice.  In  fact,  they  were  so  nwnerous, 
that  to  refute  them  would  in  some  instances  have  occupied  all  the 
space  allotted  me  for  the  principal  subject  of  discussion.  But  an 
interesting  work  has  just  issued  from  the  press,  intitled:  "  Trutlj 
Advocated  ;  in  Letters  addressed  to  the  Presbyterians,  by  Vindex," 
which  has  amply  supplied  my  deficiencies  in  this  respect.  To  this 
book  I  would  particularly  recommend  the  readers  of  this  contro- 
versy. If  the  labours  of  Amicus  has  had  no  other  good  effect  than 
to  induce  so  able  a  writer  as  "  Vij^dex"  to  take  up  his  pen,  I  shall 
not  have  laboured  in  vain. 

2  m..  14,  1323.  AMFCTTS 


FINIS 


^     DATE  DUE 

 1 

G A YLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U   S  A. 

